Skip to main content

Parliamentary debates and questions

Meeting of the Parliament 18 June 2019

The agenda for the day:

Time for Reflection, Topical Question Time, Portfolio Question Time, Cycling Action Plan, Business Motion, Planning (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 (Day 1), Business Motion, Parliamentary Bureau Motion, Decision Time, Unforgotten Forces Consortium.

Time for Reflection
placeholder video image

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

Good afternoon. Our first item of business is time for reflection, for which our leader is Father Mark Kelly, parish priest for the parish communities of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour in Beith, St Brigid’s in Kilbirnie and St Palladius in Dalry.

Father Mark Kelly (Parish Priest, the Parish Communities of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Beith; St Brigid’s, Kilbirnie; and St Palladius, Dalry)

Presiding Officer and members of the Scottish Parliament, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Jesus said:

“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

In addition to my parish duties, I am chaplain to a large Catholic secondary school, where I work with the young people and experience their joys and sorrows and their hopes and fears, as well as supporting the staff who educate the next generation and help it to grow and flourish. I therefore speak from experience when I invite you to reflect on what I describe as the current crisis in teenage and young adult mental health. It is undoubtedly a positive development for us as a society that physical health issues and mental health issues now have parity of esteem and that much of the stigma or taboo about mental health has been lessened, but that welcome change has had unintended consequences.

First, since that long overdue development has happened relatively rapidly, it has meant that the way in which we address and open ourselves up to the challenges in mental health has involved a fairly steep learning curve. Secondly, while ignoring our mental health is disastrous, addressing it in an unstructured or uncontrolled fashion can also be damaging. Thirdly, I fear that the unique fragility and vulnerability of teenagers and young adults during this societal change have yet to be fully recognised in the overall positive step of us all being more willing to discuss and seek to address mental health concerns.

A rapid, unfocused and general opening up of mental health has left some feeling adrift or overwhelmed—albeit that that has never been anyone’s intention or policy—and that disconnect is particularly acute among the young. In addition to the provision of extra support for those who are in immediate crises, I invite you to consider what can be done to provide progressive and long-term developmental help so that all children can gradually adapt into this field as they become teenagers and young adults.

I thank you for the opportunity to address you and I wish you success in your deliberations as you seek to enhance the common good of all while leaving no one behind. Please be assured of people’s continued gratitude and good wishes—and, from those of faith, prayers—for you and the good work that you do. May God bless you all.

Topical Question Time
placeholder video image
Football (Sectarianism)

1. Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it has reportedly agreed with the Scottish Professional Football League to keep information regarding the extent of sectarianism at football confidential, and whether it will publish this data. (S5T-01718)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Humza Yousaf)

I strongly agree that we need robust data to understand unacceptable conduct at football and to take the necessary action to address it. The data is collated by the football authorities, not by the Scottish Government, and was provided only on the basis that it is

“confidential and is not published.”

However, our clear and consistent preference has been for the data to be published. Therefore, I have spoken to SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster today to reiterate that point once again, and I will follow it up in writing. He and the SPFL have committed to discuss the matter at the next board meeting.

It is only through open and honest discussion, based on robust evidence, that we can work with all our partners to tackle the unacceptable conduct by a minority of spectators that, unfortunately, continues to shame our national game.

Liam McArthur

The recommendation from Professor Duncan Morrow could not be clearer: ministers, football authorities and the police should work together on the monitoring of sectarian incidents, and findings should be

“published annually to allow for a genuine debate about the extent of sectarian behaviour and attitudes in football”.

A joint Liberal Democrat and Nil By Mouth investigation shows that the Government reached agreement with the SPFL and the football authorities have been collating data for the past two seasons in secret. Nobody but ministers and the police has ever seen the data, and they never will unless something changes. Will the cabinet secretary rip up the secrecy agreement and publish, today, the contents of the sectarianism database in full?

Humza Yousaf

I recognise Liam McArthur’s interest—and the general public’s interest—in the issue. I agree that the data should be published. That is not only the view that I hold, as the cabinet secretary for the past year; it was the view of my predecessor, with whom the agreement was reached, who wrote to Neil Doncaster in 2017. His letter, a copy of which I have given to the Scottish Parliament information centre, said:

“It is difficult to see how the building of public confidence can be achieved without being open and transparent with the data gathered. I am therefore disappointed that the data gathered will not be publicly available and I hope that you will reconsider this decision.”

The serious point—I know that Liam McArthur understands this—is that the data is not the Scottish Government’s data; it is data that is collated by match officials. The proviso in the agreement that was reached was that, if we wanted to have the data, it must be confidential and could not be published. It is not in my gift to rip up, as the member suggests, an agreement with a stakeholder, because doing so could be actionable.

Instead, I have spoken to Neil Doncaster this morning and asked him once again to reconsider the SPFL’s objection to publishing the data. In fairness to Neil Doncaster, he took a very constructive approach during our telephone conversation, and he has agreed to put the suggestion forward at the next board meeting. Through such dialogue, I hope that the data will be readily published. However, I hope that the member understands that it is not within my gift to rip up the agreement and publish the data today.

Liam McArthur

It seems inconceivable that the Government would sign up to an arrangement that means that it has, in effect, been gagged by the SPFL. The Scottish Government’s independent commission asked for the data to be recorded and published annually to inform a proper public debate. It is impossible to have serious conversations about options such as strict liability if the figures are kept secret. That calls into question how seriously those who have the data are working to lift the curse that is affecting Scottish football. I, too, would like to hear from Neil Doncaster, because the SPFL’s response to date has been, frankly, pathetic. Is it not the case that, if the SPFL’s response to sectarianism is dependent on secrecy and gagging orders, it does not deserve to be running the game?

Humza Yousaf

I say to Liam McArthur, once again, that we are in agreement that the data should be published. There is no disagreement on that point. However, for us to get the data, which has helped us to focus on where our interventions should be and to focus our discussion on what he rightly calls the “curse” of our national game, we had to agree that it would not be published. It is not our data to publish; the data is collected by match officials and it belongs to clubs, the SPFL and—in relation to cup games—the Scottish Football Association.

I had a very positive conversation with Neil Doncaster this morning. As I said, he is taking the suggestion forward to his board, and I hope that his board will see sense on the issue by agreeing to publish the data.

I could mention a number of projects, including the one that Liam McArthur mentioned, that we are funding to lift the curse from our game. The Government has taken action. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was part of that action, but Parliament chose to repeal it. We will continue to intervene when we think that it is appropriate to do so. Once again, I agree with Liam McArthur that there should be transparency. Therefore, my wish and desire is for the SPFL and the SFA to publish the data.

Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)

People feel as though this is secret Scotland again. It feels to them as though not only is the SPFL keeping the dossier secret, the Scottish National Party Government is sticking by it in not forcing its hand, while admittedly making the right noises. They feel that sectarianism is being swept under the carpet. Is there a signed agreement not to publish, which could be—to use Liam McArthur’s words—ripped up? Can the cabinet secretary promise that there are no other instances of the SNP Government covering up or withholding information in this way?

Humza Yousaf

The hyperbole with which the member asks the question does the issue a disservice. The data belongs to the SPFL—it belongs to the clubs. The only way in which we could get the data was by signing an agreement not to publish it. That data has helped us to plan our interventions.

I say again that my predecessor as justice secretary, Michael Matheson, who is sitting on my right, wrote to the SPFL in 2017 saying very clearly that our position was that the data should be released. Indeed, he expressed the hope that the SPFL would reconsider its decision not to release the data. As I said, if we were to release the data, that could be actionable.

We understand that there is a real public interest in this issue and we absolutely understand why that is the case. The onus is on the SPFL to reflect on its position. It has said that it will; Neil Doncaster has said that the issue will be presented at the next board meeting and I hope for a positive conclusion from that.

James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

As the cabinet secretary is aware, I have been leading a campaign for Scottish football clubs and authorities to introduce strict liability to crack down on trouble from fans. Although I am looking at introducing legislation to achieve that, it has always been my preference for Scottish football to implement the measure itself. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments about his discussion with Neil Doncaster, but does the cabinet secretary not agree with me that it is incumbent on the SPFL and the SFA to publish their data? If they do not, people will continue to think that Scottish football believes that it is a law unto itself and has real inclination to make the necessary changes to clean up the game, or they will think that Scottish football has something to hide. Will the cabinet secretary continue to push the SPFL and the SFA to release these figures before that something to hide starts to look like something serious to hide?

Humza Yousaf

The SPFL and the SFA would do well to reflect on just how they will be viewed not just by parliamentarians but by the public on this issue if they are not as open and transparent as I and, clearly, the Parliament would like them to be with the data. That is an important point.

On the flipside, I will say to James Dornan that I have had some positive and constructive conversations with the SFA, the SPFL and wider stakeholders in football, from the Professional Footballers Association Scotland and the referees associations to supporters organisations and individual clubs. From my conversations with them, I detect a desire to do something about unacceptable conduct. Of course, what people think should be done varies. However, I will take those conversations forward.

I reiterate that we want the SPFL to publish this data; I hope that it will and I hope that it comes to that conclusion at its next board meeting.

James Kelly (Glasgow) (Lab)

To ensure that there is a positive and constructive discussion about tackling unacceptable conduct and promoting a positive, supportive experience, all verified and accurate data should be in the public domain.

It is fair to say that the engagement from some clubs and football authorities has been inadequate in recent times, so what action is the Government taking to ensure that clubs and football authorities engage more positively in this debate in order to ensure a more positive atmosphere across football?

Humza Yousaf

I thank James Kelly for the constructive manner in which he asked that question. I have taken a range of actions; there have been many lessons to learn over the years on how we approach this subject. I am trying to take as many people as possible with us on that journey. James Kelly will understand that there is a range of views on how to tackle unacceptable conduct, including the option of strict liability.

I have had some good ideas; I am happy to talk to James Kelly offline about the lay of the land among the clubs and the various stakeholders. However, we are starting to build a coalition of those who are building consensus about what we need to do. Those conversations will continue. I hope to have those conversations well into the summer, ahead of the start of the new season.

I detect that there is some movement and there is a willingness to take action, but I agree with James Kelly’s central premise that whatever we do should be done in an open and transparent way. Therefore, I hope that the SPFL will reflect on this session in the chamber and that it will come to a positive conclusion at its next board meeting and release the data into the public domain.

Caledonian Sleeper Service

2. Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Serco regarding the recent disruption to the Caledonian sleeper service. (S5T-01727)

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)

The Scottish Government is in daily dialogue with Caledonian sleeper on the issue and receives daily updates on train operations and new train status. The current disruption has been caused by damage to train wheels following an incident last Tuesday night, forcing withdrawal of a number of carriages. Caledonian sleeper is contacting affected passengers with service updates and with the offer of alternative travel or refunds. We anticipate that services will return to the normal schedule by the end of this week.

Stewart Stevenson

Is the technical fault with the carriage wheels believed to be a result of a one-off incident or a design flaw, or is there some other reason?

Michael Matheson

Although Serco has yet to reach a 100 per cent certain conclusion on the matter, its initial finding is that the cause of the incident leading to the wheel damage was incorrect setting up of the train control and management system, rather than a technical failure. Serco is continuing to investigate the matter.

Stewart Stevenson

Does customer feedback on the new sleeper rolling stock indicate that the service will continue to be an important contributor to our tourism industry once we have put the current difficulties behind us?

Michael Matheson

Although there have been teething problems with the new rolling stock, there is positive feedback from passengers. Caledonian sleeper reports that, in the four-week period from the launch of the new trains on 28 April, sale levels were 13 per cent higher than in previous years. There is no doubt in my mind that the new rolling stock on the Caledonian sleeper is increasing the confidence of those seeking to make use of the service. I have absolutely no doubt that the service will continue to be a significant contributor to tourism and the wider economy in the years ahead.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

The cabinet secretary will agree that new services invariably have teething issues. Serco is not the only company that has suffered from manufacturing issues in delivering new carriages and services. I hope that there is a shared desire among all members for the new service to succeed and to deliver for passengers on both sides of the border.

Will the cabinet secretary give an update on discussions with the operator about the Fort William and Inverness routes? The new carriages were due to come into play, but I believe that that has been delayed. When will the new service come on line? What further measures will the Government take to ensure that all Scotland benefits from the new carriages?

Michael Matheson

It is not uncommon for technical problems to occur with new rolling stock. Indeed, not just on the railways but in any walk of life, there can be technical issues when new equipment—such as boats or aeroplanes—is initially rolled out.

At present, Serco advises that it continues to expect the final introduction of the carriages on the Highlander service to be on 7 July this year, which was the timeframe that Serco initially set. The delay in all this has been down to CAF, which is responsible for manufacturing the new rolling stock—there has been a significant delay in that. The carriages were to be introduced in April last year, but CAF’s failure has resulted in a marked delay.

I know that the member has made use of the new facilities on the Caledonian sleeper, which are far superior to the previous facilities and which will provide a very good service for the years ahead. As it stands, Serco expects the new Highlander service to be introduced on 7 July.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

The sleeper service has been plagued by the late delivery of rolling stock. Almost a third of new services have been late or cancelled and workers are on the verge of strike action because of rising stress levels. Does the cabinet secretary accept that it is another example of a rail franchise in which a private firm has overpromised and underdelivered, despite significant levels of taxpayers’ money being invested? Does not that highlight the failure of the franchise system itself?

Michael Matheson

It will come as no surprise to Colin Smyth to hear that I am not a fan of the use of franchising in rail services and wish that the Scottish Parliament had the power to change it. I hope that Mr Smyth will support the Scottish Government in making a case to the Williams review so that, in future, the Parliament might choose the best route for providing rail services in Scotland, which would not necessarily include franchising.

Mr Smyth will recognise that the primary reason for the delay has been the performance of CAF, the manufacturers of the new carriages, which has had a marked impact on Serco’s ability to roll out the new sleeper service. Serco is pursuing with CAF the technical issues that have been identified with the new rolling stock, but the franchise agreement contains penalties to deal with issues such as delays. The issues with CAF are matters for Serco to pursue, but arrangements are in place to apply penalties to Serco for its failure to deliver the services that it undertook to deliver under the franchise agreement.

Portfolio Question Time
placeholder video image

Culture, Tourism and External Affairs

Tourism Businesses (North-east)

1. Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)

To ask the Scottish Government what consultations it has had with tourism businesses in the north-east regarding factors that can impact on the effectiveness of their operation. (S5O-03397)

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)

First of all, Presiding Officer, I wish you, and all members in the chamber, a happy Linlithgow marches day. Long live Linlithgow and long live the marches.

The Scottish Government recognises the growing importance of tourism to the north-east’s economy and is committed to its sustainable development. In March, I had the pleasure of visiting Aberdeen and of giving the keynote address at VisitAberdeenshire’s conference, at which I met and heard at first hand from key individuals in the industry about not only the issues that they face but the area’s wider ambition. We will, of course, continue to engage with all stakeholders, including those in the tourism sector, in delivering our policies and functions.

Liam Kerr

Recently, Charles Skene, the founder of the Skene Group and a key individual in the industry, warned of the devastating impact that the Scottish National Party’s approach to business rates is having on his and other hospitality businesses in the north-east. Has the Scottish Government considered the effect of such policies on the north-east’s tourism economy? If so, what does it propose to do about it?

Fiona Hyslop

In Scotland, the poundage for 2019-20 will be set at 49p, which is an increase lower than the rate of inflation. That will ensure that, next year, more than 90 per cent of properties in Scotland will pay a lower poundage than they would in other parts of the United Kingdom. In 2019-20, we will also continue to offer the most generous package of reliefs in the UK, which is worth more than £750 million. We will also maintain the unique business growth accelerator, which encourages new business investment by temporarily suspending rates liabilities on new-build properties and non-domestic property improvements. Further, we will continue to apply transitional relief for all but the very largest hospitality industry organisations in Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire until 2022. That means a 12.5 per cent real-terms annual cap, which is confirmation that we value the hospitality sector across Scotland, but especially in the area that Mr Kerr represents. Not only are our business rates generally competitive; we offer additional support for the tourism sector in Aberdeen. Some of the higher-end organisations in the hospitality sector might have their own issues, but I say to Mr Kerr that the vast majority of tourism and hospitality businesses in the north-east welcome those measures.

Historic Environment Scotland (Foreign Visitor Numbers)

2. Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)

To ask the Scottish Government what the percentage change in foreign visitor numbers at Historic Environment Scotland sites has been since 2014. (S5O-03398)

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)

Historic Environment Scotland’s general visitor numbers have been steadily increasing since 2014. The number of overseas visitors to sites in its care has increased by an estimated 41 per cent in five years. That figure, which is based on visitor sampling across the estate, clearly indicates the growth of the organisation’s international market in recent years. The reduction in the value of the pound since 2016 and the expansion of passenger numbers through Edinburgh airport are two of the driving forces behind the increase. Historic Environment Scotland seeks to maintain that by working with partners, communities and stakeholders to develop a strategic vision and plans for prioritised sites.

Angus MacDonald

I welcome the higher figures for visitors to historic sites, which are a welcome boost to our economy, especially locally, with a number of such sites having benefited from being film locations for United States-financed dramas such as “Outlander”. However, the cabinet secretary will be aware of an increase—in both her constituency and mine—in the number of foreign visitors visiting film locations at points of historic interest, which has resulted in increased traffic on local roads. Is she aware of any plans that Historic Environment Scotland or the National Trust for Scotland might have to erect “keep left” signs at exits from their properties, similar to those that are located at sea ports and airports and on tourist routes, to act as a reminder to foreign drivers who might be unfamiliar with driving in Scotland and the wider UK?

Fiona Hyslop

The National Trust for Scotland is, of course, independent of the Scottish Government.

I am aware of the issue, and I have contacted Historic Environment Scotland about local issues in my constituency.

Transport Scotland is not aware of any general plans to install “keep left” signs at properties. Before anything was to be placed on a public road, consultation with the roads authorities would be required. However, the member may be aware that, yesterday, at Urquhart castle, Police Scotland and road safety Scotland launched a new campaign to remind tourists to drive on the left. The campaign, which coincides with the peak tourism season, encourages visitors to enjoy Scottish roads safely.

A new-look tourist information leaflet on driving in Scotland will be distributed when people pick up hire cars, and an electronic version will be issued at the time of booking. In addition, “drive on the left” wrist bands in multiple languages, which are to be worn on the left wrist by drivers, will be distributed via car rental companies to remind and prompt visitors to keep left.

Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Although it is good news that Historic Environment Scotland has seen a 5 per cent increase in visitor numbers in the past year, with Blackness castle having seen a 36 per cent increase, that will add to the infrastructure and maintenance costs at sites. Over the past two years, Historic Environment Scotland has seen a 12 per cent cut in its budget, and, although the increased revenue is important, it does not compensate for that reduction. What discussions is the cabinet secretary having with the heritage sector about its ability to meet visitor demand, including for improved accessibility?

Fiona Hyslop

As we speak, the eastern borders of Linlithgow are being inspected at Blackness, which is the port for the town. As the member said, there has been a major increase in visitor numbers, which is related to “Outlander”.

Last week, at Doune castle, which doubles as Castle Leoch in “Outlander”, I announced the latest round of our rural tourism infrastructure fund, which exists precisely to make sure that there is added investment. Doune village will be better connected to the castle so that it can benefit from the increasing tourist numbers. Given the increasing pressure of numbers, we are working with local communities across the country to ensure that there is infrastructure such as car parking, facilities, signage and paths.

Historic Environment Scotland’s overall spend has been maintained, partly because it has seen an increase in visitor numbers and, indeed, because the generation of its external funding has increased. We are very conscious of that. However, I stress that, at a time of difficult financial pressures, we have managed to maintain the grant funding that Historic Environment Scotland gives to others. It has been able to maintain its investment precisely because of the increased tourist numbers complemented by the investment by the Scottish Government.

In recent years, the Scottish Government has, for the first time, provided capital investment to Historic Environment Scotland specifically to help with its infrastructure needs. That has been welcomed by the Historic Environment Scotland board.

Edinburgh Festivals (Artists’ Visas)

3. Gordon MacDonald (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it is aware of any action being taken to ensure that the Edinburgh festivals do not experience the same difficulties as last year regarding complex visa rules faced by some artists. (S5O-03399)

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)

At the end of last month, I was pleased to close the members’ business debate on the important topic of visa issues for festivals. For the benefit of those who were not in the chamber on that day, I repeat that I have written to the Home Secretary as well as to other ministers, inviting their attendance at an international festivals visa summit here, in Edinburgh. I have reiterated that a better solution for visiting artists, performers and others must be integral to any future immigration system.

The United Kingdom Government’s current visa application process for visitors who come to Scotland for our festivals is lengthy and complex, and there is a catalogue of examples of poor decision making. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Scotland’s voice and that of our internationally renowned festivals is heard in the discussion on the future immigration system.

Gordon MacDonald

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for her efforts to address the problem. The issue needs to be addressed for the long term. Will the cabinet secretary join me in calling on the UK Government to make the visa process for this year’s festivals more transparent and to allow festival organisers a chance to put any errors or omissions right before a visa refusal is received?

Fiona Hyslop

I will, indeed. We have reminded the Home Office that it needs to address that for this year, not just for future years. The member will have heard about the real concern of two Indian artists who have come as part of a UK-India cultural exchange programme, which was set up by the UK Government with funding from the British Council, Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government. Paragon, a charity that promotes Scottish inclusive music and dance, was involved in that particular programme.

The galling thing is that the artists’ non-disabled colleagues from the charitable foundation in Chennai, who were travelling to Glasgow with them to support them, were granted entry without any trouble but the two young artists were not. We are looking into the issue and we are asking the Home Office to look into it. As of now, and as of this weekend, we are continuing to see the issues that are faced by cultural artists who want to come and perform here. They should be made welcome, and we should celebrate our international musical connections. The Home Office really must pay special attention to those issues this year.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

I am aware that we are well over halfway through portfolio questions time-wise but not question-wise, so I ask members to be a bit sharper, please.

Remembering Srebrenica Scotland (Meetings)

4. Anas Sarwar (Glasgow) (Lab)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Remembering Srebrenica Scotland and what was discussed. (S5O-03400)

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)

There are regular discussions with Remembering Srebrenica Scotland on all matters of interest. Most recently, we discussed how ministers could participate in its lessons from Srebrenica delegations. I understand that Ms Todd, the Minister for Children and Young People, attended earlier this month. The First Minister visited Srebrenica in 2016 and described it as an incredibly powerful experience. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of learning from what happened so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

Anas Sarwar

Last week, I was in Sarajevo. In 1984, it hosted the Olympic games and was seen as a multi-ethnic, multifaith city. By 1992, it was a city under siege. In the four years that followed, 160,000 people lost their lives. In these times of rising division and prejudice, can the cabinet secretary set out how we are learning lessons from that in our classrooms and communities across the country? It was best put by Rashad, a survivor, who said:

“We must not just live next to each other but live with each other. We must stop the ‘us v. them’ and the othering, and we must speak out against prejudice no matter whenever or wherever it takes place.”

Fiona Hyslop

I followed the member’s own contribution to his visit with interest. The message is one of how rapidly a community and a society can descend into hate, and that is something that we must all learn from. I know that other colleagues are pursuing the issues in relation to classrooms and communities.

On the matter of bringing people together, the point that it is not a case of “us v them” is precisely the message that we have put into our “We are Scotland” campaign on social media, to ensure that we, as a Government, stand firm. Standing firm and showing leadership at this time is so important. In the society that we live in, what has been fomented by some in the far right in this country, in particular, should lead us to be always vigilant. That means tackling issues up front rather than when they actually arise. As we have seen in other countries, a society can descend into such situations very quickly, and we should definitely guard against that.

Tourism Careers

5. Tom Mason (North East Scotland) (Con)

To ask the Scottish Government how it will support the tourism industry in championing the sector as a career destination of choice. (S5O-03401)

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)

The Scottish Government has committed to promoting tourism as a career of choice and has set aside £100,000 to develop a campaign to support that commitment. The campaign will build on the existing tourism skills investment plan led by Skills Development Scotland. It aims to address existing and future skills challenges across the sector, particularly those that will arise as a result of exiting the European Union. The Scottish Government has also engaged with the Poverty Alliance, with the aim of increasing payment of the living wage and enhancing fair work practices within the sector in order to support that aim.

Tom Mason

A vital part of encouraging people to work in tourism is ensuring that people are studying courses on the industry at further and higher education levels. However, according to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, in North East Scotland College in 2017-18 2,648 people were enrolled in health studies courses, 748 were doing hair or personal care courses and only 178 were studying tourism. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need more people to take tourism courses? What does she plan to do to make that happen?

Fiona Hyslop

That is precisely why we are having a campaign to promote tourism as a career of choice. As Tom Mason might be aware, the number of young people is reducing, so we need to encourage people of all ages into the tourism sector. However, the sector is, of course, in competition with the health sector, among others. It is therefore more important than ever that we embark on such a campaign, and that we have champions who can show how tourism can be a very successful career choice. People can go very far in the sector at a very young age, which should make it very attractive to that market.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take a short supplementary from Stuart McMillan.

Stuart McMillan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)

How will the tourism sector be affected by Brexit and visa restrictions?

Fiona Hyslop

The sector will be severely restricted. Six of our 10 key markets are in the European Union, and 12 per cent of our workforce are non-UK EU nationals. It is essential that we retain those who are already here and that we make clear their importance to our society and economy, but we also need a future pipeline of EU nationals. The current United Kingdom immigration white paper, which I sincerely hope is withdrawn and rewritten, proposes a £30,000 minimum salary, which will cause severe issues and difficulties in recruiting into the sector in the future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before I call Willie Rennie, I have to point out that we are not going to get to the end of the questions, which is a mark of people giving statements as well as asking questions, and of rather long answers, too.

Scottish Fisheries Museum

6. Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to the Scottish fisheries museum in Anstruther. (S5O-03402)

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)

The Scottish Government continues to provide support to the Scottish fisheries museum. In the current financial year, a total of £109,000 has been allocated to the museum, with £75,000 for operational costs and £34,000 for capital expenditure. In 2018-19, the museum received additional in-year funding of £75,000 and a further £330,000 to assist in the refit of the museum’s flagship, Reaper, bringing the total investment from the Scottish Government to £830,000.

The museum celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, and I look forward to joining the celebrations, which will begin on 4 July with Reaper returning to its home port of Anstruther.

Willie Rennie

I declare an interest as a trustee of the museum.

The cabinet secretary is right to highlight the fact that the national museum has been going for 50 years. It is grateful for the support that the Scottish Government has provided in that time—not just to the museum but to the Reaper. The special occasion will be marked by a number of special events, including a flotilla of up to 50 boats in early July. Will the cabinet secretary set out whether there are any further opportunities for the museum to engage in the wider community across Scotland in order to ensure that communities can engage with our seas and the fishing industry?

Fiona Hyslop

Willie Rennie is quite right to advertise that fantastic celebration, in which I hope everyone can take part. However, we have to do more. At yesterday’s strategic historic environment forum meeting, we had a session on industrial heritage, with a particular focus on how we might engage more people in sites and museums such as the fisheries museum to ensure that they know about the very rich heritage that we have not just in places in Fife, but further afield.

Tayside Tourist Numbers

7. Bill Bowman (North East Scotland) (Con)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it plans of the impacts on tourist numbers in Tayside. (S5O-03403)

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)

I was very pleased to speak at the Dundee and Angus tourism conference in March last year, which brought together the area’s tourism interests and bodies, with a focus on the wider tourism opportunities ahead. We understand from figures supplied by the Moffat centre that visitor numbers in the Dundee and Angus area have increased 13.3 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared with last, and that the V&A Dundee has had a wider impact by supporting visitor numbers elsewhere.

VisitScotland is supporting businesses and local authorities in the Tayside area in developing a regional tourism strategy.

Bill Bowman

Although Tayside has international attractions including the V&A, there are no international air connections from Dundee airport. Given the millions of pounds that it has poured into Prestwick airport without that figure being matched in Dundee, will the Scottish Government commit to investing in Dundee airport in order to bring international tourists to the heart of Tayside?

Fiona Hyslop

I am not the transport secretary, but Bill Bowman is correct to highlight the importance of bringing in direct flights, wherever they come from. Some creative work has been done for some airports in that respect. As tourism secretary, I would support the suggestion, but I cannot tell the member about any particular plans. If colleagues can contribute anything in that regard, we will communicate that to the member.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take a very quick question from Kenneth Gibson.

Còig Tourist Trail

8. Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made with devising and implementing the Còig tourism trail. (S5O-03404)

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)

In January, I announced £300,000 from the Scottish Government to support Còig feasibility work, and that money has enabled the establishment of a partnership steering group between industry and North Ayrshire Council. We are also providing North Ayrshire Council with a further £400,000 for 2019-20 to progress the project.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Extremely quickly, please, Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for the financial support. The Còig—the Five—is expected to attract an additional 80,000 visitors to North Ayrshire next year, supporting 168 jobs and allowing for an extra £4.5 million of economic impact.

Will the cabinet secretary expand on how the timescales for the devising and implementation of the Còig tie in with 2020 being the year of Scotland’s coasts and waters?

Fiona Hyslop

I understand that the Ayrshire tourism action plan, called “Making Waves in North Ayrshire”, runs from 2018 to 2020. Of course, we have designated next year as the year of coasts and waters, which is a fantastic opportunity to advertise the Còig and to ensure that people visit Ayrshire to celebrate everything that it has to offer—maritime and otherwise.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was not bad. That concludes portfolio questions.

Cycling Action Plan

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on the cycling action plan for Scotland. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

14:40  

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)

I welcome this opportunity to update Parliament on the cycling action plan for Scotland and the work that we are doing in partnership to realise the active travel vision. The Government remains strongly committed to delivering an active nation, and the vision of Scotland’s communities being shaped around people, with walking and cycling the most popular choices for everyday short journeys.

The “Cycling Action Plan for Scotland” was originally published in 2010. It set out a shared vision that, by 2020, 10 per cent of all journeys in Scotland would be by bike. That vision was intended to be bold, aspirational and challenging. We have seen significant progress in some areas, such as cycle commuting in Edinburgh, which is now at 9.8 per cent. However, progress towards the overall figure has been slow, and it is unlikely to be met by 2020. We recognised some time ago that the speed of change was not good enough. That is why, last year, we doubled Transport Scotland’s active travel budget from £39 million to £80 million.

In order to make best use of that investment to bring about the transformative change that is needed, we are working with our partners to develop a monitoring framework. It will define a range of important outcomes, including to ensure that cycling is accessible to all, and to improve safety, health, the economy and the environment. The framework will be a key new measure to drive forward active travel policy, and it will inform on-going work with our partners on developing a reliable and nationally consistent way of measuring progress towards 2020. We are also undertaking a broad programme of analytical work and engagement with our delivery partners to better understand where we and others are succeeding in making progress, and to apply those lessons elsewhere.

With the doubling of Transport Scotland’s active travel budget, we have levels of investment in active travel that match our ambitions. Including match funding from local authorities, Scotland’s investment in walking and cycling in 2018-19 was £135 million, which is more than £25 per capita. That is far more investment than there is in the rest of the United Kingdom, and a similar level of investment to that of our northern European neighbours, such as the Netherlands and Denmark.

As well as our £80 million of active travel funding, we have allocated a further £5 million for sustainable travel behaviour change projects. We also offer £950,000 worth of loan funding for electric bikes, and we have secured a further £7.6 million from the European regional development fund for low carbon and active travel hubs. We have used those increased budgets to step up support for local authorities to build safe, segregated walking and cycling infrastructure, and to expand and improve our behaviour change programme. That integrated approach is crucial—evidence shows that combining training and advocacy with high-quality infrastructure and places that are designed for people is the best way to enable more people to walk and cycle for everyday journeys.

We see some signs of progress. As well as the increase in cycling in Edinburgh, we have seen similar increases in Glasgow, Moray and Highland council areas, and 10 per cent of people who live in small remote towns cycle at least once a week as a means of transport.

Since 2011, more than a quarter of a million schoolchildren have participated in Cycling Scotland’s bikeability Scotland cycle training. The percentage of schools participating has risen from 29 to 42 per cent, and nearly 500 schools have received cycling friendly status through Cycling Scotland’s cycling friendly scheme.

All that is before the effects of our record capital investment are truly being felt.

It will take time to build the quality, transformational places and infrastructure that we need. It is important that we take the time to work with communities to ensure that the projects are right, but we will look at ways to streamline the process.

Last year, we invested £36 million in Sustrans’ community links programme and a further £9 million to commence the design of six larger, ambitious and high-quality segregated cycling infrastructure projects. I look forward to seeing the first of those—the south city way in Glasgow—being delivered in 2019.

This year, I am delighted to announce that we are allocating a record £51 million from our active travel budget for 2019 to our new, combined infrastructure programme called places for everyone, which is administered on our behalf by Sustrans. As part of the programme, 10 ambitious projects are being considered for large-scale, multiyear funding. So far, Sustrans has received funding bids from 30 local authorities for segregated paths, improvements to the public realm and projects that would make our towns and cities safer and friendlier places in which to live, work and spend time. We hope to announce those projects in the next few months.

However, it is important to recognise that investment in active travel facilities and behaviour change projects will not, on its own, bring about the step change that we want. In all this Government’s work—on bus services and public transport more generally, health and wellbeing, planning, the environment and climate change—we need to consider how we can support active travel.

The broader, more strategic approach will be supported by the national transport strategy and the second strategic transport policy review. Both will set out a compelling vision for the transport system that we want for Scotland over the next 20 years and the type and scale of interventions that we will deliver to achieve that.

The draft national transport strategy, which we will consult on this summer, sets four priority areas: taking climate action, improving our health and wellbeing, promoting equality and helping our economy prosper. Those priorities recognise the importance of enabling people to make active travel choices to improve their health and wellbeing.

The Transport (Scotland) Bill will be an enabler of change. It aims to improve journeys for people across the country by supporting the development of a cleaner, smarter and more accessible network. By seeking to improve bus services and introducing low-emission zones, it promotes active and sustainable travel and, for cyclists, the prohibitions on double parking will assist in keeping roadways clear.

In addition, we have agreed to support a Scottish Greens’ amendment to the bill to enable local authorities to introduce workplace parking levy schemes. That would be a discretionary power. It has the potential to encourage modal shift towards public transport and active travel, including by supporting improvements to transport infrastructure and services in local areas to provide alternatives to car use.

Better integration between modes is important. Buses have a key role to play in joining up active journeys and in spreading the benefits of active travel more widely. If integrated active travel infrastructure and bus routes offer people faster, easier, healthier and more sustainable means of getting to their destination, they are much more likely to use them, and I am keen to see how the new internal bike racks introduced by Borders Buses earlier this year will be taken up.

On rail, ScotRail has delivered more than 1,500 additional cycle spaces at stations and provided bike & Go cycle hire facilities at 12 stations across Scotland. Overall, 97 per cent of stations have cycle parking, with more than 5,000 customer cycle spaces in total.

On climate change, this Government reacted to the declaration of a global climate emergency with amendments to our Climate Change (Scotland) Bill to set a net zero target for 2045 and to increase the target for 2030 to 70 per cent.

Scotland already has an ambitious agenda for decarbonising transport, but transport is Scotland’s biggest emitting sector, and it is clear that further action will be required to meet the new targets.

The Scottish Government is committed to making Scotland an active nation, and we are now matching that ambition with record levels of funding. There are positive signs of progress, but less than we would like and there is much more for us to do. I am confident that our ambitious programme of active travel investment will play a key part in delivering the greener, safer, happier and healthier Scotland that we all want to see.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement, for around 20 minutes. A lot of members wish to ask questions, so questions and answers will have to be concise if we are to get through them.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I will start by being positive and thanking the cabinet secretary for his statement. However, the reality is that, in this 1,230-word statement, there is little to be cheerful about. Quite simply, we learned from it that, on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, the Scottish National Party confirmed its support for the much-critiqued and hated car park tax; and, on active travel, it announced an £80 million budget that we already knew about but which has been miraculously reannounced today. Further—this is the big announcement—we learned that there will be continued funding for a policy that we already know about, delivered by an agency that we already know and funded by a budget that has already been announced.

Perhaps the real news today, buried away in the statement, is the cabinet secretary’s admission that the Government will spectacularly fail to meet its flagship cycling action plan target of 10 per cent of journeys being made by bike. Let us give the minister a chance to give some substance to his statement. What percentage of journeys does he expect to be made by bike by the original 2020 target? When does he expect the 10 per cent target to be met? If, after 10 years, his current cycling action plan has failed, will he publish a new one, and, if so, when?

Michael Matheson

As it stands, around 4 per cent of journeys are made by cycling, in the way that was set out in the plan. That is a record level, but it is clearly very far from the target that was set when the action plan was published in 2010, which illustrates the need for us to take further action on the matter. That is why I am putting in place a framework in order for us to monitor implementation and ensure that there is a much greater focus on the outcomes that are being achieved as part of the plan. In addition, we are undertaking a review of the existing cycling action plan, which is being conducted by Cycling Scotland and will inform our thinking about what further actions we need to take as part of that review.

The member suggested that the announcement of £80 million was a reannouncement. It is important to recognise that we are talking about a record level of funding that is being invested in active travel. Given that that funding is match funded by local authorities, it represents a significant amount of on-going investment in active travel—the highest level in any part of the UK. We need to ensure that we start to see the benefits that come from that capital investment in order to encourage people to make greater use of active travel options when they are travelling.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement.

Almost 10 years ago, the Government set a target to increase the share of everyday journeys that are made by bike to 10 per cent by 2020. Since then, the proportion of all journeys that are taken by bike has increased by just 0.7 per cent to a woeful 1.5 per cent. It is difficult to imagine that we will reach even half the level of the Government’s target by 2020. That failure needs to act as a wake-up call to the Government.

I welcome today’s announcement about the places for everyone infrastructure programme. Consideration of significant projects for funding will be essential if we are to increase the active travel rate in Scotland. However, given the climate emergency that we face and the slow progress in increasing the number of journeys that are made by bike, does the cabinet secretary accept that all viable projects in the programme, and not just a select few, should be funded?

Michael Matheson

It is important that we recognise the need to take concerted action to tackle the climate emergency, including by ensuring that local authorities have the power to take forward measures that can assist them in tackling issues that relate to climate change.

I hope that the member will reflect on what I think was a knee-jerk response from the Labour Party to the proposal to give local authorities powers to introduce the workplace parking levy, given that I understand that such a policy was in the Labour local government manifesto for the Glasgow area at the most recent elections, in recognition of the levy being an important measure that can assist in tackling issues to do with climate change, air quality and modal shift. No doubt we will see the colour of Labour’s money tomorrow, when the amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill in that regard are considered; we will find out how committed Labour is to tackling the climate emergency.

I assure the member that we have made record investment in active travel infrastructure and maintained that this year. The proportion that is going to capital investment projects has increased as well, to support the transformational change in infrastructure that we need, which is a key part of what is necessary to address the low number of individuals who take up active travel options. We will continue to do that, and for local authorities that want to make additional investment, there is the option of using the workplace parking levy and investing the money that comes from it in their local areas. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I do not want to cut people off—[Interruption.] Mr Smyth, please be quiet. I do not want to cut people off mid-stream, so please be concise with your questions and answers.

Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)

Cabinet secretary, there was more spin in your statement than you will see in a peloton. You have a vision for 10 per cent of journeys to be made by bike by next year, and you have declared a climate emergency, yet you have announced nothing new beyond more monitoring and analysis. You even failed to acknowledge that, with just six months to go, the rate sits at just 2 per cent, which is even lower than the 3 per cent of the huge transport budget that you invest in active travel.

Is it not high time that the vision became an actual target? Will you tell the Parliament, in response to the question that Jamie Greene asked, just when you intend to meet it?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that they should always speak through the chair.

Michael Matheson

We have asked Cycling Scotland to review the action plan and consider what further measures need to be taken to address the issue that the member raised.

We are committed to continuing our record investment in active travel provisions, investing £80 million. I often hear the member say that we should use a larger proportion—at least 10 per cent—of our roads budget in Scotland for that purpose. The Transport Scotland budget for our trunk road and motorway network is £800-odd million, and £80 million is actually more than 10 per cent of that particular budget.

No doubt people will call for greater investment in the area. We have sought to make the matter a priority, which is why we doubled the budget. It is extremely disappointing that we have not achieved the target over almost 10 years, and that is why it is important that we have a clear focus on ensuring that we take the right measures, which will deliver the type of change that we want to see. That is exactly—

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)

When?

Michael Matheson

That is exactly what the framework and the review are about. I heard Mr Harvie ask, “When?” from a sedentary position; we are doing that right now, to get the matter addressed.

Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)

A safe route to school is a right for children. Can the cabinet secretary give details on how we can ensure that a child has the right to a safe cycling route to school?

Michael Matheson

Through the £51 million places for everyone programme, we are encouraging all local authorities to submit proposals for projects that will deliver safer routes to school for children. In 2018-19, we invested some £2.5 million in infrastructure in and around schools and more than £2 million on behaviour change and cycle training programmes for children.

This year, Sustrans has received proposals from 25 local authorities for safer routes to schools and other infrastructure projects around schools. The proposals are currently being evaluated.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

Two years ago, this Parliament agreed to a motion that every schoolchild should have the opportunity to benefit from cycle training. Then, only 62 per cent of schools offered cycle training; now, the figure has fallen, when it should have increased. How will the transport secretary ensure that we make cycle training available to all our schoolchildren, as we unanimously agreed in this chamber two years ago?

Michael Matheson

As I mentioned, the number of local authorities and schools that are participating in the bikeability Scotland scheme and the cycling friendly programme has increased. Local authorities need to buy into the scheme and we will continue to work to encourage them to do so, because the scheme can help ensure that their pupils understand the risks and benefits of cycling on the roads and that they think about the options for cycling. The scheme is available for local authorities to buy to into and we continue to promote it to them and ask them to do so. However, it is ultimately down to local authorities and schools to decide whether to make use of it. The funding continues to be available for them to participate in the scheme.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I welcome the commitment to additional funding. Will the cabinet secretary consider infrastructure spending to improve the cycling network along the south-west Scotland coast, so that it can be better connected and more accessible and attractive to people in Scotland as well as folks who are looking to holiday in and visit South Scotland?

Michael Matheson

As I just mentioned, the £51 million places for everyone programme is operated by Sustrans on our behalf. Local authorities can bid into it for cycling infrastructure, and I encourage local authorities in the south-west of Scotland to consider putting forward proposals to that fund.

Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)

Last week, I made the point—with which I think the cabinet secretary agreed—that a 20mph limit would be ignored and would not get more people cycling. What would get them cycling are safe segregated cycle lanes, which I think Gillian Martin spoke about.

The cabinet secretary spoke about money to Sustrans, but that is in the context of massively constrained local authority funding. What role will the Scottish Government play in ensuring that proper cycling infrastructure is put in place, and how much money is the Government directly committing to that?

Michael Matheson

The Government commitment is £51 million, which is match funded by local authorities. The vast majority of funding in the £80 million active travel budget is capital investment, most of which is match funded by local authorities. This year, that has resulted in about £135 million being invested by the Government and local authorities.

I disagree with those who say that the Government should pay for it all, because local authorities have a key role to play in taking ownership of the delivery of the type of infrastructure that is necessary. The reason for that is one on which I agree with the member. Segregated infrastructure for cycling and walking is one of the critical elements in supporting people to make that modal shift, which is why we have supported local authorities by increasing our funding for that type of provision in this year’s budget and why we have set them the target of match funding it so that we see even greater investment in that type of cycling and walking infrastructure.

Tom Arthur (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)

Neilston Development Trust in my constituency of Renfrewshire South delivers a range of services in Neilston and across East Renfrewshire to promote cycling, including repairs and maintenance, reconditioning donated bikes and providing training. How will work to deliver the ambitions of the cycling action plan support local community-led groups such as the Neilston Development Trust to promote cycling in their areas and how will such groups contribute to reaching our national targets for increased cycling?

Michael Matheson

The cycling action plan underpins the grant funding mechanism for a range of cycling funds. In 2018-19, we have invested £7.28 million in behaviour-changing activities to encourage more people to walk and cycle safely and confidently. That includes £300,000 in grant funding that is issued through the cycling friendly community development fund, which can support small local initiatives of the nature that Tom Arthur highlighted. I encourage the Neilston Development Trust to consider making an application to the fund for support for its valuable work in his constituency.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

The cabinet secretary utterly failed to even refer to the question that my colleague Colin Smyth asked. Let me give him another chance. Given the woeful progress in raising the number of journeys by bike and the need—by his own admission—for more segregated on-road cycle lanes, does the cabinet secretary accept that all the viable projects in the places for everyone infrastructure programme should be funded?

Michael Matheson

I am conscious of the number of calls that are made on Government funding for a whole range of initiatives. It would be great if we could provide funding to them all, but we have a limited budget and make investments in areas where we can get the best and greatest benefit. That applies to the transport portfolio as it does to health, justice and education.

I recognise that the Labour Party works in a world in which there is a money tree at the bottom of the garden that can fund anything and everything that anybody requests, but the reality is that we have a limited budget. We have made record investment in cycling infrastructure—no doubt the member will welcome that. We will do as much as we can to get the infrastructure right by supporting the various initiatives right across local authorities in Scotland. I will leave Labour to deal with the money tree at the bottom of the garden and with how they would fund all those things.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Alasdair Allan, to be followed by—[Interruption.] Mr Smith, please stop being so rude to your colleagues when they are called for their questions by shouting from your seat.

Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)

The Hebridean way cycling route has successfully drawn more and more cyclists to the Western Isles since it was opened by record-breaking long-distance cyclist Mark Beaumont three years ago. What action is the Scottish Government taking on infrastructure to make provision for that growth, in both the islands and other rural areas of Scotland?

Michael Matheson

I am well aware of the increasing number of people—not only from Scotland and the UK, but from elsewhere—who are attracted to and make use of the Hebridean way, which is proving to be extremely popular. Within our active travel funding, the funding for the £51 million places for everyone programme allows local authorities to submit proposals for delivering paths for walking and cycling in rural areas of the nature that Alasdair Allan referred to. For example, in the Highlands, we continue to develop the Caledonian way, which is being invested in to support the route link between North Connel and Oban, and we want to see an expansion of those types of strategic tourist routes that will encourage people to travel to Scotland. Local authorities can submit proposals to the places for everyone programme in order to get funding support for walking and cycling initiatives.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Cycling Scotland published its own progress report on the cycling action plan in 2016, which stated even then that the 10 per cent target would not be met. It said that

“A long term increase in sustained funding is required, with year-on-year increases over time towards a 10% allocation of national and council transport budgets”

Does the cabinet secretary agree with that?

Michael Matheson

Last year, we doubled the active travel budget, and this year, we have sustained that in order to see greater capital investment. Therefore, I recognise that greater funding should be made available to provide the type of infrastructure that supports people to make a model shift from using cars to cycling or walking, alongside continued investment in other options such as bus and rail travel. All those things will contribute to this agenda, and we continue to make significant investment in them from an active travel point of view and as part of Scotland’s wider transport infrastructure.

Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)

A number of schoolchildren have just joined us in the gallery. I would be surprised if even one or two of them cycle to school. In terms of the safety of cycling to school, does the cabinet secretary agree that a 20mph limit might be better for children?

Michael Matheson

That is why, as a Government, we support the introduction by local authorities of 20mph zones in the right places, particularly around schools. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, we want to ensure that local authorities introduce the zones in the right areas. A number of local authorities already do that. I am sure that the member would want to acknowledge that, and that she would want to ensure that councils have the powers and the ability to do that and that she would support them in doing that.

I am afraid that the member is misguided if she thinks that we do not support 20mph zones—we do; we just do not believe that the one-size-fits-all approach of Mr Ruskell’s bill is the right way of going about that.

Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the fantastic work being done by Forth Environment Link and Stirling cycle hub to promote and encourage cycling in the Stirling area and make Stirling the most cycle-friendly city in the country? The city-wide bike sharing scheme is an important part of that. What more can the Scottish Government and local government do to help to develop more protected cycle lanes? In Stirling, 83 per cent of residents support building such lanes, despite the impact on traffic.

Michael Matheson

I am very much aware of Forth Environment Link’s work in Stirling and its active travel hub there, which I believe may be as good as its active travel hub in my constituency, just along from my constituency office in Falkirk. I am also aware that Forth Environment Link is taking forward work on the community links plus project, which is aimed at delivering safer roads and segregated cycle paths, and improving the local public realm for pedestrians and other users. I have no doubt that Forth Environment Link will continue to pursue that.

Additionally, Forth Environment Link is developing the first regional electric bike scheme in Scotland, which will support modal shift and sustainable travel options in the area. I would certainly want to continue to encourage Forth Environment Link on that very important work, which I have seen at first hand in my constituency, and which is taking place in Mr Crawford’s constituency.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the ministerial statement on the cycling action plan for Scotland. Other members would have liked to have asked questions but were unable to do so. I would ask all members to consider that when they are asking questions and providing answers, they should be a bit more concise.

Business Motion

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-17782, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 4: 55 minutes

Groups 5 to 8: 1 hour 40 minutes

Groups 9 to 11: 2 hours 30 minutes

Groups 12 to 15: 3 hours 20 minutes

Groups 16 to 18: 3 hours 50 minutes

Groups 19 to 22: 4 hours 45 minutes

Groups 23 to 25: 5 hours 45 minutes

Groups 26 to 28: 6 hours 15 minutes

Groups 29 to 32: 7 hours 5 minutes

Groups 33 to 37: 7 hours 45 minutes

Groups 38 to 40: 8 hours 30 minutes.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Planning (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 (Day 1)
placeholder video image

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list, the corrections to the marshalled list, and the groupings of amendments. For the first division of the afternoon, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. That first division will last for 30 seconds, but thereafter the first division after every debate will last one minute. Any member who wishes to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

Section A1—Purpose of planning

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on the purpose of planning. Amendment 113, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendment 114.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

It is a pleasure to be the first speaker in what is going to be a bit of a marathon for members of the Scottish Parliament. I will attempt to keep all my comments in all the groups that I speak on as brief as possible.

At stage 2, we ended up with two purposes for planning. Clearly, there is not a lot of sense in that. One purpose was from me and one was from the Government. As you might expect, Presiding Officer, mine was rather shorter than the Government’s and was much to be preferred.

The Presiding Officer knows that I am up for compromise; that has been a hallmark of the bill. In that spirit, I agreed to consider lodging something between the two. I have come up with something that is nearer to my original version than the Government’s. I commend it to Parliament, because it is not Governmentspeak. Amendment 113 removes section A1, and amendment 114 replaces the second purpose, and is the new purpose. If Parliament goes along with that, we will have a purpose of planning that is fit for purpose.

I move amendment 113.

15:15  

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

We support a purpose of planning for the whole planning system. Section A1 of the bill as amended provides for that, so we oppose its removal and we will vote against amendment 113.

Section A2 provides a purpose of planning in relation only to the national planning framework and development plans. It is our view that we need to retain an overall purpose, hence our support for retaining section A1. If we were to have a narrower purpose, it would be to reflect our international commitments, especially in the context of a climate emergency and the First Minister’s commitments on human rights leadership. However, those are being stripped out, so we will vote against amendment 114.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

The purpose of planning is about much more than the development and use of land. It is about the development and use of land in the public interest. A progressive and transparent planning system has the potential to transform lives. Spatial planning can affect the environment and our physical and mental health and can bring about equality. We welcome the capturing of that by the inclusion of “sustainable development” and “the national outcomes” in amendment 114. Therefore, we will support amendments 113 and 114.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

I welcome Graham Simpson’s statement that he will keep his comments brief. I will follow suit.

I welcome Mr Simpson’s amendments 113 and 114. If we are going to have a purpose of planning, we must have a single purpose. I agree that it should apply at the strategic level to development planning, which sets the context for individual decisions. By making reference to “the national outcomes”, the version in amendment 114 incorporates the achievement of human rights and the United Nations sustainable development goals, and avoids any risk of confusion or possible discrepancies between those requirements. That purpose will support the planning system in achieving better outcomes for our communities. I hope that Parliament will support it.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. I suspend the proceedings for five minutes to allow the division bell to be rung and members to return to the chamber.

15:18 Meeting suspended.  15:23 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

We move to the division on amendment 113.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 108, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 113 agreed to.

Amendment 114 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 110, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 114 agreed to.

Section 1—National Planning Framework

The Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on the national planning framework’s preparation and content. Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 186, 20, 21, 173, 23 to 26, 187, 7, 27 to 29, 32, 174, 174A, 174B, 174C, 174D, 174E and 36.

Kevin Stewart

The national planning framework is a long-term spatial plan for Scotland. It will set out national policies for the development and use of land, and it will play a critical role in our planning system.

The amendments in the group focus on the content of the national planning framework. Many stage 2 amendments highlighted issues that members wanted to be addressed in the bill. Such matters usually related to policy rather than to primary legislation, but I have listened carefully to the debate, and I understand why members want to highlight in the bill the issues that are important to them. My amendments do not seek to remove such references, but it is important to ensure that duplication is avoided, terminology is tidied up and procedures are clarified.

This part of the bill looks very complex, with provisions being deleted from one place in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and put back in another, so I hope that members have had the chance to look at the version of the 1997 act that officials have produced, which shows how it would look if the amendments were agreed to.

At the top level, in section 3A of the 1997 act, we have brought together some of the key priorities for the framework and listed them as outcomes. Ministers will have to include a statement in the framework about how development will contribute to the outcomes. I will briefly set out the approach to each of them.

I agree that the framework should have regard to

“meeting ... housing needs ... in particular, the housing needs of older people and disabled people”.

That reflects the principle that drove multiple amendments on the topic from members at stage 2. The requirement for the framework to contain targets for use of land for all types of housing was inserted at stage 2, and my amendments will not change that.

Also,

“improving the health and wellbeing of people”

is a clear priority. That outcome reflects Monica Lennon’s amendments at stage 2. At stage 2, there was support for

“increasing the population of rural areas of Scotland”.

Including that as an outcome reflects previous amendments from Rhoda Grant and Alasdair Allan. Another outcome is

“securing positive effects for biodiversity”,

which recognises the point that was made by Graham Simpson in his amendment at stage 2. My amendment 28 defines “biodiversity”.

I have made one important addition to the list of key outcomes. I am sure that members will agree that the national planning framework must do all that it can to help us to achieve our ambitious targets for tackling climate change. Amendment 173 will add that outcome to the list.

Amendment 27 to the end of section 3A of the 1997 act clarifies that the Scottish ministers can set out wider

“policies or proposals that relate to the development and use of land outwith the National Planning Framework.”

That will ensure that the Scottish Government can continue to produce, for example, circulars relating to specific policy areas.

Agreement to amendment 186, in the name of Claudia Beamish, would mean that the life cycle emissions from national development must be assessed during the preparation of the national planning framework. I see merit in that proposal, so I will support amendment 186.

Planning brings together policies and applies them to places in a joined-up way, so links with wider policies and strategies are essential. My amendment 174 would retain the list of strategies and plans that the Scottish ministers must have regard to in preparing the national planning framework, but it would move the list to proposed new section 3CZA of the 1997 act.

15:30  

I am happy to support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 174B and Rhoda Grant’s amendments 174C and 174D, which would add to that list

“any national strategy in respect of improvement of air quality”,

the land rights and responsibilities statement, and

“any national strategy for the ownership or use of land”.

The framework should naturally take account of all the things that affect the development and use of land.

Alongside the list of strategies and policies, we have included other policy objectives of resettling previously populated rural areas, preserving disused railway lines for future public transport links, and preserving peatland.

I support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 187, which requires that the framework include maps or other descriptors of rural areas where

“there has been a substantial decline in population”.

I thank Ms Grant for working with the Government on that amendment.

I cannot, however, support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 7, which would take those requirements further, with detailed timeframes for the “maps ... and descriptive matter”. Before we go too far down the track of including such detail in legislation, there needs to be fuller debate on how best to support our rural communities. Unfortunately, amendment 7 runs ahead of that, so I cannot support it.

I am not convinced by Mr Rowley’s amendments 174A and 174E. I find it hard to envisage the Scottish ministers wanting to adopt a national planning framework that is “not compatible with” their wider policy areas, so I cannot see much practical benefit from the amendments and, because I do not want to add unnecessary procedures, I do not support them.

Proposed new section 3ZAC of the 1997 act also brings together requirements for consultation in preparing the framework, including the requirement for a participation statement. Among those who must be consulted is the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change. Amendment 36 will remove a fuller set of requirements that was introduced by Monica Lennon at stage 2. To be absolutely clear, this is not a watering down of climate change requirements—I propose including this as a high-level outcome for the framework. As agreed with the Committee on Climate Change, amendment 174 provides a much more practical, flexible and effective approach that will avoid extra costs and delays.

There is a requirement

“to involve the public at large in the consultation”,

and

“persons or bodies ... that have a role in the delivery of the outcomes”

that are listed in amendment 173. That will overturn more detailed requirements to consult particular officers or groups of people.

My amendments do not propose to change any of the matters on which Scottish ministers may direct planning authorities to provide information to assist in the preparation of the NPF under proposed new section 3AA of the 1997 act. All the stage 2 changes to that list will remain as they are.

I move amendment 19.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

My amendment 186 relates to the content of the national planning framework and requires an assessment

“of each proposed national development’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions”

and their impact on achieving our national emissions reduction targets.

My amendment 219 defines “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” as those that are “associated with” a development’s “construction, operation, and decommissioning”. It is vital to consider the impact of developments in this holistic way, because lighter construction phases of ultimately heavily emitting projects can be misleading.

I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, and the drafting of amendment 219 comes direct from the minister’s comments at stage 2, which I have taken on board. He said:

“I agree that it would be useful to undertake such an assessment of all the proposed national developments to be included in national planning framework 4 and I would be happy with an amendment in those terms, so that the most significant long-term infrastructure projects ... would be assessed in that way.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 31 October 2018; c 25.]

Parliament this morning agreed, at stage 2 of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, to set a target of net zero emissions by 2045. That means that we all need to invest in developments that will serve us well into the future. We have a climate emergency, so the duty on the Scottish ministers properly to future proof national developments is absolutely vital, so I am delighted that the minister has accepted amendment 186.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

I will speak to amendments 187, 7, 174C and 174D. Most of my amendments to the bill cover declining populations in rural areas. As this is the first time that I have spoken during consideration of amendments, I will take a little time to point out why that issue is of concern and why we should remedy it.

I was brought up in Wester Ross, so I am painfully aware that population decline poses a real threat to the very existence of many rural communities, and not just in the Highlands and Islands but throughout Scotland. Of course, there is much to celebrate in what our rural areas contribute to Scotland, including spectacular landscapes and natural heritage that draw visitors from home and abroad. Rural areas are also where most of our food is grown and where most of our carbon is sequestrated. Rural Scotland is important to the whole of Scotland.

Recent research by the James Hutton Institute paints a grim picture of the future for Scotland’s sparsely populated areas. The report’s key finding is that those areas

“have a demographic legacy which, in the absence of intervention, will result in decades of population decline, and shrinkage of its working age population, on a scale which implies serious challenges for economic development, and consequences for its landscape and ecology which are poorly understood.”

The report also states that we risk losing more than a quarter of the population from such areas by 2046, which will threaten the very existence of the communities there.

When I spoke to amendments that I lodged at stage 2, I argued that it is time to give the people dimension of the countryside greater status in developing future planning policy, because people are the life-blood of those places. It was therefore encouraging that my stage 2 amendments on rural repopulation attracted cross-party support.

The challenge is to ensure that Scotland’s planning system facilitates rural repopulation that balances sustainable economic development with protection of our landscapes and natural heritage. The amendments that I have lodged for stage 3 are intended to help the planning system to do precisely that.

Amendment 187 would enhance the national planning framework’s content by allowing for the production of

“maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter ... of rural areas”

where

“there has been a substantial decline in population”.

That would provide useful indications of places where rural repopulation might be desirable and feasible.

Amendment 7 would serve the same purpose in relation to assisting in the preparation of the national planning framework’s content, but it would provide more focus on the timeframe to which such material should relate, and it specifically indicates that the produced material may relate to areas that “are no longer inhabited”. However, given the minister’s constructive comments and support for my other amendments, I am minded not to move amendment 7, when the time comes.

Amendments 174C and 174D would reinforce the fact that the bill is concerned with a land use planning system. The amendments would ensure that the Scottish ministers, in revising the national planning framework, must have regard to

“any land rights and responsibilities statement”

and

“any national strategy or action plan for the ownership or use of land”

that they have prepared. That would complement the other strategies and policies that are listed in the bill and emphasise the cross-cutting significance of land reform to development of the planning system.

Alex Rowley

Barring some fairly glaring and notable omissions, which I will come on to, the Government has done an effective job of building into the bill the diverse and important set of principles that were raised at stage 2. It is welcome that the national planning framework will include statements on meeting the housing needs of people in Scotland, including older and disabled people, and on improving health and wellbeing. Labour members, in particular Monica Lennon, have argued throughout the passage of the bill that public health and reducing health inequality must be at the heart of our planning system. It is also welcome that there will be statements on meeting emissions reduction targets and on increasing the population of rural areas in Scotland, which is an important issue that Rhoda Grant has raised.

However, equality and non-discrimination is a notable omission from the issues that the national planning framework will address. That was reflected in the Government’s failure to engage adequately with Monica Lennon’s and Andy Wightman’s amendments on gender at stage 2.

The design of Scotland’s urban space and infrastructure has traditionally been based on male need, and so it contributes towards women’s exclusion from public life. The Government has taken a strong line on gender equality, including its acceptance of structural inequality, so it is deeply disappointing that it has not made equality a key outcome of the national planning framework, which is the key expression of its planning policy. I look forward to seeing whether the Government will support Monica Lennon’s amendments on equality and non-discrimination, which we will debate later.

Scottish Labour will support all the amendments in the group apart from amendment 29, which seeks to delete the requirement for the Government to consult the chief medical officer and the chief executive of the national health service. If the Government is serious about spatial planning working to help people’s physical and mental health, it must have an idea of the key challenges and how they differ across Scotland, which will require that it take expert advice.

The combined work that has already been done on planning and public health is a great example of what can be achieved when we stop working in silos and bring together people who have different areas of expertise. However, sometimes time and resources can get in the way of that, so a statutory footing is required in order to make partnership working happen. Here is an opportunity for the Government to embrace that approach, and not to run away from it.

Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

I record my thanks to Kevin Stewart for his constructive discussions and engagement between stages 2 and 3 on air quality and pollution. During those discussions, I was able to raise a number of constituency issues—especially issues that affect the community of Scone, which has faced a number of very illogical planning decisions that will make its air quality worse.

Of course, pollution remains a big killer in Scotland. One of the conclusions of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s inquiry into air quality was that we need to embed consideration of air quality further in the planning system. Amendment 174B would do that by ensuring that the refresh of “Cleaner Air for Scotland: The Road to a Healthier Future”, which is our national strategy on air quality, will have increased weight in the national planning framework. That is a positive step forward. I welcome where we have got to with the bill.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

I welcome amendment 173, in the name of the minister, which will insert into section 1 a new subsection on the national planning framework. It sets out the outcomes to which the NPF would be expected to contribute, and makes specific reference to housing need, and especially to the needs of

“older people and disabled people”.

It also outlines other key outcomes, including improving health and wellbeing, increasing the rural population, meeting climate change targets and securing positive effects for biodiversity.

Amendment 173 will consolidate a number of amendments that I lodged at stage 2. I am pleased that it positions the housing needs of older people and disabled people as a priority. My colleagues on the Local Government and Communities Committee who looked closely at the bill at stage 2 will know that I pressed for that, given that housing has a key role to play in allowing older people and disabled people to live independent, healthy and active lives. Investment in appropriate housing will save resources that would otherwise be spent on health and social care, will help to tackle loneliness and isolation, and will contribute to improved health and wellbeing.

A number of housing challenges arise from Scotland’s rapidly ageing population, which underlines the need to invest in housing for older people and disabled people. There is therefore a pressing requirement to ensure that their housing needs are explicitly recognised in the planning system. Amendment 173 would mean that, under proposed new section 3A(3)(ba) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, ministers would be required to include in the NPF a statement about how such outcomes would be achieved. That would help to guarantee that the Scottish Government would be held to account on its delivery of key outcomes, including meeting the housing needs of older people and disabled people.

Given the terms of the proposed new subsection that amendment 173 would insert, amendment 21 would remove the change that was made by my amendment 16, which I lodged at stage 2, which would require the NPF to set out what the Scottish ministers consider to be the priorities for housing that is suitable for older people and disabled people and for meeting those needs. That amendment is no longer necessary because housing for such people will be included as a high-level outcome of the NPF.

Similarly, amendment 25 will remove section 1(2F) of the amended bill—which was inserted by my amendment 168 at stage 2—which required the Government to set national targets for housing that is suitable for older people and disabled people, and to report on consultation.

Amendment 173 supersedes the need for that provision, removal of which resolves issues to do with definitions and requirements that would make national targets unhelpful.

Overall, the amendments in the group will ensure that providing housing for older and disabled people is a policy principle for development plans nationally and locally, while avoiding the duplication that would arise from multiple amendments that seek similar outcomes, and ensuring that terminology is used consistently throughout the bill. I am therefore happy to support amendment 173.

15:45  

Andy Wightman

Greens were pleased to see the amendments that the minister has lodged, and we agree with them all, bar one. They will streamline and consolidate a range of policy changes that were agreed to at stage 2. Like Alex Rowley, however, we will oppose amendment 29. The fact that the chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS Scotland happen to be members of staff of the Scottish Government does not remove the value of their being consulted.

We also welcome Alex Rowley’s amendments 174A and 174B, because they will improve accountability and alignment with the matters that are covered in proposed new section 3ZAC of the 1997 act, which will be introduced by amendment 174.

Although we are sympathetic to the intention behind Rhoda Grant’s amendments 174C and 174D, we will not support them. In our view, the land rights and responsibilities statement is not relevant to the planning system, and neither is

“any national strategy ... for the ownership of land”.

The ownership and occupation of land are not matters for the planning system per se, and use of land is already covered by proposed new section 3ZAC(3)(a)(v) of the 1997 act, which will be inserted by amendment 174.

We will, however, support Rhoda Grant’s other amendments.

Graham Simpson

There is no doubt that after stage 2, the bill was—to use the minister’s word—a bit of a “guddle”, and it certainly needed to be tidied up. Fortunately, the Government took on that work, so I praise the minister for doing a good job in the group of amendments that we are discussing.

I will touch on a few areas. Kenny Gibson mentioned amendment 173, which is on meeting the housing needs of older and disabled people. That subject was inserted at stage 2. A number of members of the committee felt that it was very important, so I am delighted that it will be in the eventual act—as long as the bill is passed, of course.

I also welcome Kevin Stewart’s amendment 28, which sets out a clear definition of biodiversity. I am glad that he has recognised the importance of biodiversity, which was the subject of an amendment of mine at stage 2. That is good.

I also praise Mark Ruskell, who attempted to get something on air quality into the bill at stage 2. It was not agreed to, but he went away and improved his proposal, so the Conservatives can certainly support it at stage 3.

The Presiding Officer

I call on the minister to wind up on the group and then to press amendment 19.

Kevin Stewart

I will be very brief, Presiding Officer. I thank all members who have engaged to improve this part of the bill. Many folks have come through my door, and at the end of that we have amendments that are much better than the original ones.

I will touch on what Mr Rowley and Mr Wightman said about a requirement to consult the chief medical officer and why we have taken that out. The reason is simple: it would not be appropriate for the Scottish ministers to consult Scottish Government officials on a Scottish Government policy. It is also a very narrow provision and, in practice, the participation statement covers everyone. I hope that that leads to some understanding on the issue.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Amendment 186 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Amendments 20 and 21 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 173 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question on amendment 173 will be put after consideration of the next group, as it may be amended by amendment 173B.

Group 3 is on consideration of equalities issues. Amendment 173B, in the name of Monica Lennon, is grouped with amendments 189, 190 and 183A. I remind members that, if amendment 33 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 189 and 190, as they will be pre-empted.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Amendment 173B is intended to add

“improving equality and eliminating discrimination”

to the national planning framework outcomes. Amendments 189 and 190 seek to require the Government to produce guidance on equalities in planning. Amendment 183A seeks to make promoting equalities and supporting planning authorities to embed equalities in practice part of the role of the improvement co-ordinator.

I draw members’ attention to the briefing that has been circulated by Engender, which calls on MSPs to back these amendments to ensure that the planning system works for women. I believe that the Planning (Scotland) Bill presents a unique opportunity to make communities across Scotland more equal. Spatial planning at its best understands and responds to the different needs that people have in our public places and spaces. Currently, however, none of the Scottish Government’s documents on planning strategy refers to gender or women, in spite of some very good national commitments to gender equality in the national performance framework and the inclusive growth pillar of the Government’s economic strategy. That is disappointing.

Achieving those goals depends on proactive steps being taken across policy areas by both national and local government. Gender equality must be mainstreamed through planning policy, strategy and decision-making processes. Inequalities are baked into our built environment and shape our patterns of movement. For women, how we move in our society is affected by the inequalities that we face. For example, around two thirds of unpaid care work is carried out by women, and unpaid caring can tie women to residential areas where there are services and amenities linked to their caring and household roles. However, jobs—especially those that pay higher wages—tend to be further away from residential areas, which makes it difficult or, at worst, impossible for many women to access them. The concentration of jobs away from residential areas means that women spend more time and money than they can afford on travel, and some simply cannot afford to be part of the labour market. Planning cannot be just a paper or plan-based technical exercise; it has to be about getting the best outcomes for people.

Members may ask what violence against women has to do with the planning process. Violence against women persists in Scotland, and we have to root it out. How we plan our communities can make real practical improvements to the experiences that women face, and how we design in safety and build inclusive public spaces is really important. Things such as lighting and the spaces between buildings matter. I have talked about caring and how the burden still tends to rest with women, so access for wheelchairs and pushchairs is important.

All those things are planning issues. As Alex Rowley stated in speaking to amendments in the previous group, the Government has taken a strong line on gender inequality but, sadly, structural inequality still persists. From listening to evidence at stage 2, I picked up that some of the planning authorities do not see that they have a role in this area and that gender equality is not front and centre when they are looking at planning policy and making decisions.

I say that in the context of the diminishing resources that planning authorities find themselves working with. We need the proposed guidance, and the role of the improvement co-ordinator will be crucial in ensuring that planning authorities have the necessary tools and support to bring about real, meaningful change for women and to support diversity and inclusion in all our communities.

I believe that the amendments are proportionate and practical and will make a positive difference. Indeed, Engender has said that, without them, the bill will not deliver improvements to a process that has failed to adequately consider women’s needs or make progress towards gender equality. Let us not miss this opportunity. I ask colleagues to support amendments 173B, 189, 190 and 183A.

I move amendment 173B.

Andy Wightman

I will make just a few brief comments on these amendments. I commend Monica Lennon for persisting with a topic that we had extensive discussions about at stage 2. There are many examples of countries, such as Sweden and Austria, that have highlighted the highly gendered nature of land use and planning. We have a lot of work to do on the topic, and I hope that, if these amendments are agreed to, it will be the beginning of a new chapter in planning.

Graham Simpson

I strongly urge Monica Lennon not to move amendment 183A, which relates to the national planning improvement co-ordinator. We will come to that issue later, but there have been a lot of discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the matter and it is now in a happier place with amendment 183. Frankly, if amendment 183A were to be agreed to, it would open up a hornet’s nest.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to support Monica Lennon’s amendment 173B, which seeks to insert the additional outcome of

“improving equality and eliminating discrimination”

into the national planning framework.

However, I am not able to support her amendments 189 and 190. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published technical guidance on how to apply the public sector equality duty, including on collection of evidence, instigation of research or consultation, if appropriate, and consideration of mitigating actions. That is the commission’s responsibility—it is not the role of ministers. However, I assure Ms Lennon that, in preparing the national planning framework and statutory guidance on effective community engagement, we will take account of and draw attention to the commission’s guidance.

Andy Wightman

I understand what the minister says about the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but it is, as it were, a kind of side body. Planning decisions are being made week in, month out in Scotland that promote the interests of men—who, for example, predominantly drive cars—so we need to have the proposed approach at the heart of the planning system.

Kevin Stewart

I am quite sure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not see itself as a side body, and neither do I.

I cannot support amendment 183A, on the role of the planning improvement co-ordinator. As we will see later, we have not proposed to set out any detail of the co-ordinator’s functions on the face of the bill. Instead, we will work collaboratively with stakeholders to develop the role and to determine the detailed functions that are to be set out in regulations. We consider that the co-ordinator should consider the range of functions that an authority exercises and that the role should be developed in collaboration with stakeholders. Although we envisage equalities functions being included, setting out specific subjects at this stage would pre-empt that collaborative approach.

I support amendment 173B, but I ask Ms Lennon not to move her other amendments in the group.

Monica Lennon

I will press amendment 173B and move the other amendments in the group.

One of the issues raised by Engender, particularly in evidence at stage 2, is that the approach to gender inequalities is one of the weakest aspects of the bill. At committee, I asked the minister several times about the dialogue and engagement that he had had. I have to say that I do not really understand the resistance to embedding equality into every part of the planning system. Andy Wightman is correct to talk about countries across Europe and elsewhere that do that sort of thing really well—indeed, we heard some evidence on that.

I am not sure about the hornet’s nest that Graham Simpson is concerned about. There does not need to be any conflict over this. If we really want to get planning right for everyone, we can find a way of doing so.

16:00  

Although I am grateful to the minister for the partial support that he has offered, it will be disappointing if these amendments are rejected, particularly if we reflect on the fact that Engender is saying to MSPs that they would be a positive step. All the good work that the Scottish Government is doing on gender equality will be diminished if the Parliament rejects these amendments today.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 173B be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 91, Against 30, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 173B agreed to.

Amendment 173, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 23 to 26 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

I propose to put the question on all four amendments together. Does anyone object?

Members: Yes.

The Presiding Officer

I will put the questions individually.

Amendments 23 and 24 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 97, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Amendment 187 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 7 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on national scenic area consultations and reports. Amendment 188, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 11 and 206.

Rhoda Grant

A research report on community empowerment and landscape that was published last year by Community Land Scotland and the Institute for Heritage and Sustainable Human Development identified a participation gap that is experienced by communities in getting their voices heard in the process of applying landscape designations relating to historical and natural heritage. Ensuring that communities’ views are not airbrushed from those landscape designation processes is vital, and the amendments seek to address that gap as it applies to national scenic areas, which are the only relevant designations in the scope of the planning system.

Amendment 188 would ensure that ministers, when preparing the national planning framework,

“must have due regard to any National Scenic Areas report published by them”.

Amendment 11 specifies who should be consulted in relation to any proposed new national scenic area designation and includes any person

“resident within, or adjacent to, the area of a proposed designation”

and

“a community body (as defined by section 4(9) of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015) with an interest in the land of a proposed designation”.

Amendment 206 requires ministers to

“publish a report on the consultation undertaken in regard to the designation”

of any new national scenic area as soon as is practicable after the year of designation. The report must include

“the ways in which the views”

of

“any person consulted ... were taken into account”,

and

“how ... Ministers intend to improve their consultation process before issuing”

any future such directions.

I move amendment 188.

Andy Wightman

We are not keen on and see no need for amendments 188 and 206—consultation and reporting requirements are already in place for such designations. However, the Greens will support amendment 11, which would improve the consultation process.

Kevin Stewart

I agree that it is important to consult residents and communities when an area is designated as a national scenic area. That will help to ensure that any decisions are undertaken with the full and meaningful involvement of local people. Therefore, I am happy to support amendment 11.

Amendments 188 and 206 will ensure that consultation is reported on and taken into account in the national planning framework. I am grateful to Rhoda Grant for working with the Government to improve her stage 2 amendments, and I am happy to support them.

The Presiding Officer

Does Rhoda Grant want to add any comments in winding up?

Rhoda Grant

I have no comments to add, but I am grateful for the support.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 188 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 116, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 188 agreed to.

Amendments 27 to 29 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

I propose to put the question on all three amendments together. Does anyone object?

Members: Yes.

The Presiding Officer

I will put the questions individually.

Amendments 27 and 28 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 91, Against 38, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

We turn now to group 5, on national planning framework processes.

Members might like to know, just for information, that, according to our predicted times, we are absolutely on target. Group 5 is relatively long—I say that in case members need to nip out at any stage. I stress that I intend to call relief breaks throughout the afternoon and early evening—not quite yet, but maybe at the end of this group.

Amendment 30, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 31, 33, 34, 37 to 52, 100 to 103 and 111. I point out that, if amendment 33 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 189 and 190, which have already been debated, as they will be pre-empted.

Kevin Stewart

At stage 2, there was great interest in the content of the national planning framework and the procedures for preparing it. In particular, Graham Simpson made significant changes to the procedures for preparing and approving the framework. My amendments do not seek to change those procedures significantly. For example, I accept that there will be benefit in giving the Parliament the power to approve the framework before the Scottish ministers can adopt it.

However, there is a need to tidy up the provisions so that the process runs smoothly. The amendments in this group aim to consolidate the changes that were made at stage 2. I will address the significant amendments and not dwell on those that simply rearrange, reword and tidy up the provisions. Most of the amendments in the group are technical and consequential and do not make notable changes.

At stage 2, it was clear that the committee wanted more attention to be given to housing for older people and disabled people. Some of my amendments remove some of the detailed requirements that were added. Amendment 32, for example, removes detailed consultation requirements associated with the topic, as that would be addressed in the NPF participation statement. The issue is addressed instead by other amendments—some that I have already covered in group 2 and others that I will speak to in group 7.

Amendment 34 tidies up the timing of the duty to review the national planning framework. It sets out a 10-year review timescale and carries forward existing arrangements that allow Scottish ministers either to review the framework or to publish an explanation of why they have decided not to revise it. Amendment 49 removes extensive provisions on data protection that were inserted by Graham Simpson’s stage 2 amendments. Those provisions are not needed, as appropriate requirements are already set by wider legislation.

Amendment 51 requires the Scottish ministers to publish the national planning framework as soon as practical following adoption.

Amendment 52 requires the key agencies to co-operate with the Scottish ministers in the preparation, review and amendment of the national planning framework.

To summarise, the amendments, together, will ensure that provisions relating to the national planning framework are practical and easy to follow. I ask members to support all the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 30.

The Presiding Officer

I hope that I did not speak too soon earlier, because no one else wishes to speak on this group. However, there are a number of votes, which might take some time.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

16:15  

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

I definitely spoke too soon. There will be a division. I need to call members back. This is a one-minute division.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

I apologise to members who have had to run back to the chamber. I was trying to be helpful to members—[Laughter.] What I said was clearly very unhelpful. Members will be relieved to hear that it was not a close vote.

The result of the division is: For 81, Against 24, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I remind members that if amendment 33 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 189 and 190, as they will have been pre-empted.

Amendment 33 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Amendment 34 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 174 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

Amendment 174A moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 174A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Against

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 174A disagreed to.

Amendment 174B moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 174C moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 174C be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 115, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 174C agreed to.

Amendment 174D moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 174D be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 115, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 174D agreed to.

Amendment 174E moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 174E be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Against

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 174E disagreed to.

Amendment 174, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 36 to 52 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 1A—Open space strategy

The Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on open space strategy. Amendment 115, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 116 and 152.

Kevin Stewart

The new duty to prepare open space strategies under section 1A of the bill was introduced by Mr Wightman. Following my remarks at stage 2, he said that he would be happy to consider further amendments at stage 3 to simplify the statutory requirements and provide more flexibility. My amendments 115, 116 and 152 seek to do that.

Amendment 115 seeks to remove from primary legislation the detailed requirements of what an open space audit has to record. Amendment 116 provides instead that regulations can make provision for how planning authorities are to discharge their functions in relation to open space strategies, including how they conduct an audit and assess current and future requirements for open space.

I believe that it is more appropriate to include that level of detail in secondary legislation. That will provide us with the time to engage with stakeholders and set out an informed, practical and proportionate approach—for example, around how planning authorities can record the level of use and the condition of open space and assess future open space requirements impartially and consistently.

The bill’s definitions of “green infrastructure” and “green networks” differ from those that are currently in Scottish planning policy. At this stage, I have not sought to align the definitions, given that we will shortly embark on a wider policy review that will offer lots of opportunity for engagement and in which stakeholders can raise comments on the definitions or highlight new drivers that should be reflected.

Amendment 116 allows ministers to amend the definitions through regulations, should that be necessary. Since those regulations will be able to amend primary legislation, they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 152 will achieve that while also meeting the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s requests after stage 2 that section 275 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 should be tidied up.

I ask the Parliament to support this group of amendments.

I move amendment 115.

Andy Wightman

I thank the minister for taking forward further work on these matters since stage 2. Open space strategies have been an important part of the planning system and are in place in the vast majority of planning authorities—at present, under guidance only. The amendments put them on a statutory footing, which I hope will be welcome.

The Presiding Officer

Does the minister wish to add anything?

Kevin Stewart

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 115 agreed to.

Amendment 116 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 1B—Housing needs of older people and disabled people: parliamentary report

The Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on the housing needs of older people and disabled people and the requirement for a report to the Parliament. Amendment 53, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Kevin Stewart

I will move amendment 53, but only to allow the matter to which it relates to be debated. I do not intend to press the amendment.

The amendment sought to remove a requirement for ministers to consult and report every two years on the housing needs of older and disabled people. I agree that those needs are very important and that we should monitor progress in meeting them. However, I did not consider the report to be necessary, given the requirements that address the matter that our consolidating amendments have built into provisions for the national planning framework and local development plans.

I lodged my amendments well in advance of stage 3 to allow discussion with members. I have listened to what people said, and I fully agree that we should be planning now to ensure that we meet the future needs of our population. There is no doubt that the needs of older and disabled people will be a significant issue for the national planning framework and local development plans to tackle in the new system.

The provisions include some very bureaucratic and complex procedural requirements; subsection 1B(3) is particularly wide in scope. I am happy to work with officials to try to meet those requirements and to produce the reports.

I move amendment 53.

Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)

I thank the minister for not pressing amendment 53 in his name. The approach in section 1B, which was proposed by my colleague Alexander Stewart, helpfully gives Parliament some scrutiny over where we are going, particularly around older people and those with disabilities.

Age Scotland in particular was concerned that if section 1B was not included there would be no future proofing by Parliament. I thank the minister for listening, not only to MSPs but to others outside the Parliament. I think that the bill as it stands—and as I hope that it will be enacted in due course—will strengthen what we all seek to do: to future proof housing needs, especially for the most vulnerable in our society.

16:30  

Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

I thank the minister for the time that he has given not just to MSPs but to other groups. I am the convener of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, and there were concerns about older people and people with disabilities. I am pleased that the minister listened to those concerns. There is still a lot of work to be done, but I am sure that we will all roll up our sleeves and get on with it. I cannot thank the minister enough for listening to us all and not pressing amendment 53.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I am delighted that the minister has seen fit not to press amendment 53 and to support Age Scotland’s proposals. The factors that underline the need to invest in housing for older people and address the investment issues will save resources, which can be spent on health and social care, help to tackle loneliness and isolation, and contribute to the greater health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Addressing that issue will require strategic action at the national level through the national planning framework and, at local level, through local development plans and local place plans. I very much support that.

The Presiding Officer

The minister does not wish to press amendment 53. Does any member wish to press it?

Members: No.

Amendment 53, by agreement, withdrawn.

After section 1B

The Presiding Officer

Group 8 is on an account of decline in population. Amendment 9, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.

Rhoda Grant

Amendment 9 seeks to assist in the preparation of policies and proposals for the development and use of land by enabling ministers to prepare an account of areas in which there has been substantial decline in population since 1700.

Kevin Stewart

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I cannot hear Ms Grant and I think that I should be able to hear her so that I can respond accordingly.

The Presiding Officer

Ms Grant, make sure that your microphone is pointing straight at you. We will try to turn the sound up.

Rhoda Grant

Amendment 9 also enables ministers to specify the meaning of “substantial decline” by way of regulations and to consult persons with appropriate experience or knowledge in preparing the account.

The period since 1700 includes the time of the notorious Highland clearances—a shameful stain on Scotland’s past, which is still felt keenly in my constituency and indeed by politicians and parties across the chamber. Support for amendment 9 would allow the lasting effects of those notorious events to be accounted for as we move forward towards a hopefully more progressive and sustainable future, for both the Highlands and Scotland as a whole. Hopefully, that will lead to future generations seeing lights on in those empty glens again. I look forward to support from other parties across the chamber for my amendment.

I move amendment 9.

Andy Wightman

This is an important amendment. We know from forecasts, and indeed our own history, that certain parts of Scotland have historically been depopulated. Some parts remain at substantial risk of losing further population. In our view, that is a matter that properly requires a focus in national planning on topics such as infrastructure. The Scottish Greens will support amendment 9.

Kevin Stewart

Amendment 9 reflects a broader debate that we have had during consideration of the bill on previously populated rural areas. As I made clear at stage 2, I fully support the principle, and a number of relevant requirements will now be included in the bill.

However, I cannot support amendment 9, because drawing up such an account could be an extensive, time-consuming and costly exercise. That would be disproportionate and would add little value. The areas that have been depopulated since 1700 might not necessarily be the areas in which people want to live now. The principle of supporting rural resettlement is already embedded in provisions for both the national planning framework and local development plans. I believe that that is the best way to approach the issue.

I will continue to work with Ms Grant and others on those issues, as we have done during the passage of the bill, but I urge Ms Grant not to press amendment 9, because of the cost.

Rhoda Grant

I am disappointed that the minister has not seen fit to support amendment 9. The amendment says that the account would be

“for the purpose of explaining or illustrating”

the policies of the Scottish Government and its

“proposal for the development and use of land”.

The account would be required only when the Government has policies and proposals for the development and use of land. It would also be for the Government to

“specify the meaning of ‘substantial decline’”.

Much of the new section that is proposed in amendment 9 would leave the powers and the amount of work that requires to be carried out in the hands of Scottish ministers. However, it sends a strong signal to Scotland that we care about the clearances that were carried out in the Highlands, that we care about the modern clearances that are caused by economic decline and that we want to make sure that those places are vibrant communities again.

I urge the minister to reconsider supporting amendment 9.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Against

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Rather than guess how long the next couple of groups will take, I suspend proceedings for 10 minutes.

16:37 Meeting suspended.  16:49 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

Group 9 is on strategic development and regional spatial strategies. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 55, 56 and 106 to 110.

Kevin Stewart

These amendments set out a new approach to strategic planning in Scotland.

Amendment 54 introduces a new duty for an authority, or authorities working together,

“to prepare and adopt a regional spatial strategy”.

This should be a long-term spatial strategy that addresses the need, outcomes and priorities for strategic development and the proposed locations of that development

“in the form of a map or diagram”.

Arrangements for publication of and consultation on regional spatial strategies have been designed to be deliberately flexible to allow authorities to decide appropriate arrangements for themselves.

Amendment 54 clarifies that both the national planning framework and local development plans are to “have regard to” regional spatial strategies, which would act as a strong but flexible bridge between national and local planning.

The provisions in amendment 54 enable Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority or authorities to prepare and adopt, or to review, a regional spatial strategy. Where such a direction is made, authorities must co-operate with one another.

Amendment 54 also allows ministers to issue guidance on

“the preparation, adoption, review and content of regional spatial strategies.”

That will be a priority for us as we take forward planning reform and consider the role of strategic planning in the forthcoming review of the NPF.

Amendments 55, 56 and 106 to 110 are consequential amendments removing provisions relating to strategic development plans.

It is fair to say that it has taken some time to find the right solution in relation to strategic planning. I confess that I have been rather direct in previous debates about the shortcomings of existing arrangements for strategic planning, but I have had to do that to ensure that people understand the importance of change in this area.

I believe that these amendments strike a good balance by ensuring that not only is there a clear duty, but that the detailed arrangements are flexible and can respond to local circumstances. They will deliver on our original aim to modernise strategic planning so that it can unlock the potential of planning and guide our long-term development in a way that can better respond to evolving relationships on a regional scale.

A new approach to strategic planning is a critically important part of our reforms. I have worked hard to ensure that the concerns of the committee and of stakeholders have been addressed in these amendments. I am also grateful for the input that we have had from members of the profession. I ask members to support the amendments.

I move amendment 54.

Andy Wightman

In the committee’s stage 1 report, we recommended against removing the current statutory framework of strategic development plans. It is fair to say that views on that were mixed, but we took the view that in the absence of compelling evidence to get rid of them, it was best to keep them. However, we were clear that we were open minded about alternatives.

The Greens took the view that any replacement needs to be flexible and enable planning authorities’ agency and autonomy, and it should be universal and have meaningful status in the planning system.

What the minister proposed at stage 2 did not meet any of those tests, so those amendments were rejected. However, I am pleased to see the proposed amendment on regional spatial strategies. Although they will not form part of the development plan, we believe that the strategies will be flexible enough to enable planning authorities across Scotland to collaborate with each other in whatever manner they see fit, whether that be in relation to water catchment level plans, transportation or infrastructure. We welcome amendment 54 and we think that it will be helpful for the planning system. We will be supporting all the amendments in the group.

Alex Rowley

The removal of strategic development planning authorities with no adequate replacement in the first draft of the bill was indicative of a Government that has an impulse to centralise and has failed to recognise the creative and effective work that is being done at the local level.

Ministers are not best placed to identify the key regional planning priorities in different areas. That responsibility should lie with those who know their areas best, and the strategic development planning authorities have done a job in that regard. For example, the local authorities involved in Clydeplan have praised the contribution that regional planning has made to regeneration and economic growth in the Glasgow city region. Clydeplan demonstrates the brilliant work that can be done by well-resourced regional planning that has the backing of all partners.

Given the stark lack of recognition that the SDPAs received from the Government at stage 1, I thank them for the excellent work that they have done. That work can be recreated only in a political environment in which regional planning and the role of local planning authorities in the process are valued. The Government’s introduction of a strategic planning duty, which was made possible as a result of pressure from the Opposition parties, is welcome. However, as I will say throughout this week’s discussions, planning authorities must be properly resourced if they are to be able to fulfil their duties.

RTPI Scotland told the committee:

“between 2009 and 2016 local authorities on average lost 23% of planning staff, while over the same period planning service budgets were cut by an average of 32.5%. These figures illustrate the resource pressure that local authority planning services are experiencing”.

Staffing levels in the four dedicated strategic development plan teams are down by 60 per cent, and only eight full-time chartered planners are working across the four strategic planning areas. That is not good enough. We cannot expect regional planning to do the groundbreaking and creative work that it needs and has the potential to do to support our local economies while it is working under that kind of resource pressure. The Government needs to get real and realise that a world-class planning system must be properly resourced.

Graham Simpson

When the bill was introduced, section 2 proposed to remove the requirement to prepare strategic development plans. The Government said that that would save time and money and that the plans had become too prescriptive, overly complex, costly and lengthy to produce. However, the committee agreed that views on the proposal were mixed. We concluded that

“To the extent that there is support, it is contingent on a commitment to continue with some form of regional spatial planning”.

Section 2 of the bill as introduced would have removed altogether the requirement for SDPs to be prepared, without providing an alternative. The committee heard no strong evidence that getting rid of regional partnerships was necessary. In fact, as we have seen with city and growth deals, regional working is the way to deliver strong growth. The committee said that things should be left as they are unless something better was proposed.

Andy Wightman introduced an amendment at stage 2 that basically kept strategic development plans. Throughout the passage of the bill, we have maintained our position that if SDPs are to be removed, there needs to be a viable replacement. The Government’s amendments 54 and 55 introduce the idea of regional spatial strategies. Amendment 54 states:

“A planning authority, or two or more such authorities acting jointly, are to prepare and adopt a regional spatial strategy.”

In other words, we are saying, “You must have one, but we’re not going to be prescriptive about it.” Some of our councils cover enormous areas. Highland is perhaps the best example, and we might think it odd if Highland were told to link up with another council to produce a regional strategy when it is in effect a region in itself. Under the proposal, it will not have to do so.

The proposals keep regional working, but with flexibility, and we can support that. We have argued that regions can be the engines of growth, and we know that to be true. Delivering growth is an important role for the planning system. Rather than the sweeping destruction of regional working that we could have faced, the proposals are an important step towards getting Scotland’s economy back on track, so we will support all the amendments in the group.

17:00  

Kevin Stewart

I will not rehearse all the previous arguments on strategic development plans, because we have already done so on many an occasion. However, I will say that regional spatial strategies are more agile and better able to reflect and align with wider regional partnerships—for example, those relating to the economy, city deals and transport. Unlike the previous strategic development plans, they also cover all areas of Scotland, which recognises that strategic issues do not arise only in our city regions.

I urge members to support the amendments in the group.

Amendment 54 agreed to.

Amendment 55 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 2A—Evidence report for preparation of strategic development plan

Amendment 56 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Local development plans

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 10, which is on local development plans. Amendment 57, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 58 to 64, 191, 65 to 68, 68B, 69 to 73, 192, 74, 193, 75 to 84 and 86 to 97.

Kevin Stewart

Local development plans have a crucial role to play in a plan-led system. It is important that we get such provisions absolutely spot on. Section 3 has become one of the most confusing sections of the bill as a result of the many stage 2 amendments. I have taken on board the many priorities that members wanted to see covered by local development plans. However, I also want to restore clarity to the form and content of local development plans and reduce duplication.

As was the case with group 2, which was on the national planning framework, many of the amendments in group 10 are purely technical; I will speak only to the more substantive ones. Again, I hope that members have seen the proposed amended version of the 1997 act, which will allow them to see how the amendments would fit together.

Amendments 57 and 92 remove requirements for local development plans outwith the areas of strategic development plans to address cross-boundary issues. Those are unnecessary, given the amendments that I have already set out—which Parliament has agreed—in group 9.

Several amendments bring order to the crucial matter of housing in local development plans. Amendment 59 ensures that plans include targets for meeting the housing needs of all people who live in an area. Amendment 60 removes detailed specifications on what the targets should include, as they were too narrowly defined. However, amendment 67 incorporates the specific requirement for the targets to include the needs of students, older people and disabled people.

Amendment 68 requires plans to address the availability in a district of land for housing, consolidating stage 2 amendments that were removed by amendment 76. I am happy to support amendment 68B, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, to ensure that housing for older people and for disabled people is addressed as part of that approach.

Amendment 83 further requires plans to set out a summary of the action taken by an authority to support and promote the construction and adaptation of housing for older people and disabled people, including analysis of the extent to which it meets their needs. Other amendments remove duplication in that regard.

In recognition of the importance of supporting the accommodation needs of Gypsy Travellers, amendments 84, 94 and 96 insert a requirement for authorities to include a summary of action taken and the extent to which such needs have been met.

Amendment 64 removes the requirement for the plan to include a list of sites for self-build housing. In group 12, we will discuss an alternative approach to self-build.

At stage 2, a number of references were inserted to address the repopulation of rural areas. Rhoda Grant’s amendment 191 would require plans to include

“maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter”

to support that. Section 15(4) of the 1997 act already provides for the inclusion of maps and diagrams in general, so I see no need for amendment 191 and I ask Ms Grant not to move it.

Planning has an important role to play in supporting health, and several amendments support but rearrange the requirements in that area for practical reasons. Plans will be required to plan for health infrastructure, manage the effects of development on health and take into account the health needs of people who live in the plan area. I hope that Monica Lennon will agree that those amendments will meet her aims.

Alex Rowley’s amendments 192 and 193 seek to ensure that education is taken into account in local development plans. I agree that that is essential, but his amendments duplicate the requirement for education facilities to be considered alongside other infrastructure under section 15(5) of the 1997 act. I see no need for that duplication, and I ask Mr Rowley not to move his amendments.

Amendments 83 and 61 adjust John Finnie’s stage 2 amendments on disused railway infrastructure so that the matter will sit under section 16(2) of the 1997 act.

Amendments 88, 89, 95 and 97 rearrange the requirements for engagement with community councils and disabled people, requiring the evidence report to set out how they have been involved.

Amendments 82 and 91 remove duplicating requirements on the participation of children and young people; I stress that they do not water down the intention. I have spoken many times about the importance of involving children and young people in planning. Proposed new section 16ZA of the 1997 act, which is removed from the bill by amendment 82, is worded in such a way that there is no clear requirement on authorities to engage with children and young people. A clearer requirement is included in proposed new sections 16A(1A) and 16A(2A) of the 1997 act. In any case, participation statements will have to set out how all people will be involved, and statutory guidance on effective community engagement will promote a more inclusive approach.

We have put a lot of work into rationalising the provisions on local development plans. None of the policy principles has been lost, but it is important that planning authorities and others have a clear and logical set of requirements that they can apply in practice.

I ask members to support all my amendments in the group and Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 68B.

I move amendment 57.

Rhoda Grant

Amendment 191 was designed to assist planning authorities in preparing the content of their local development plans by enabling them to include

“maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter”

relating to rural areas in their districts in which there has been a substantial decline in population. Its purpose is to assist them in the preparation of local development plans by providing useful indications of where rural repopulation may be both desirable and feasible. Given the minister’s assurance that that is already provided for in legislation and that such material would be prepared, I do not intend to move amendment 191.

Jeremy Balfour

I will keep my remarks very short. I am grateful to the minister for accepting my amendment 68B, which seeks to amend his amendment 68. I refer to my earlier comment that older people and those with disabilities need to be considered. I hope that the whole Parliament will agree to both amendments.

Alex Rowley

Amendment 192 adds the education needs of the population of the district and the likely effects of the development and use of land on those needs, and amendment 193 adds the capacity of education services in the district, to the matters to be considered in the local development plan.

It is important to recognise the work that has been done by the Government’s team to capture some of the key themes that emerged during stage 2 and to incorporate them in the bill. We will be supporting the majority of the amendments in this group, but we encourage members to vote against the following amendments.

Amendment 64 deletes the requirement for local authorities to make a statement on how the local development plan will impact on health in the region. We believe that a requirement on planning authorities to take health into account as part of the local development plan is a step forward. However, it is not a substitute for the transparency, accountability and ability to share and learn that come from a statement on what will change. There is so much scope for what that could include—for example, it could include active travel, green space, leisure facilities and community spaces.

Amendment 82 deletes plans for meaningful consultation with young people. Despite promises that were made in 2006, the problem of a lack of community engagement in the planning system has endured. The Government’s review concluded that the front loading of consultation has not worked. For example, in oral evidence to the committee, the City of Edinburgh Council argued that our limited system of front loading

“has not been enough to generate community trust and confidence in the planning process.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 18 June 2018; c 78.]

We should seek to open and demystify the planning system and show young people that planning is relevant to them. Of course, that all becomes more difficult when communities have no rights of appeal—but that is an issue that we will come on to.

Engaging young people via their schools, youth councils and the Scottish Youth Parliament provides a way to give a range of young people an insight into planning and a stake in their local communities that will endure into the future, and which may even bring a more diverse range of voices into the local place planning process.

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has stated:

“We are disappointed that Amendment 82 seeks to remove the obligation on local authorities meaningfully to involve children when preparing their Local Development Plan.

Children and young people engage extensively with the built environment throughout their lives in their communities. It is fundamental to take account of children and young people’s views, best interests and needs to ensure that public bodies’ decisions both advance their rights and prevent a negative impact on them.

The Scottish Government has committed to the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into Scots Law before the end of this Parliament. One of the core principles of the UNCRC is the right of children to express their views in all matters affecting them (article 12).

Putting the views of children at the core of the planning system, when Local Development Plans are prepared, will ensure not only that their rights are realised. Children are the experts in how they live their lives and experience their environment, they can provide invaluable input into Local Development Plans that no one else can.”

As I said, amendments 192 and 193 would add to the matters that should be considered as part of the local development plan the education needs of the population and the capacity of education services in the district. That approach would introduce consistency with the national planning framework and establish the strong links between development and the capacity of education services. When land is allocated for housing, there must be certainty both that education services are prepared for any increase in the number of young people in the area and that the Government is made aware of any increased pressures on local schools as a result of planning applications being approved. Surely that would be supported by a thorough understanding of the population’s education needs.

17:15  

We acknowledge that access panels do not have a statutory basis and therefore cannot be included in the bill. However, will the minister state on the record that he supports those panels being consulted wherever they exist?

We are satisfied that the Government has reflected the need for housing need to be covered in the local development plan, but it is important to note that the bill will not solve the current accessible housing crisis.

The Government is letting down disabled people; indeed, a recent report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission concluded that disabled people in Scotland are being robbed of their dignity and independence due to a chronic shortage of accessible housing. It found that many disabled people are unable to leave their homes or are being forced to live in a single room because of a lack of suitable housing and long waiting lists for adaptations. Some rely on family members to carry them upstairs or between rooms, and having to cope with such issues every day can lead to a serious deterioration of health, including mental health. The EHRC has said:

“The effect of this cannot be understated. It impacts on every aspect of a disabled person’s life, their ability to participate in family life, to work, to access education and social life”.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations recently reported that funding for adaptations in housing association homes has been frozen for the past seven years and that, in 2018-19, the shortfall between the money awarded and the money required was £7.925 million. On top of making provision for the crisis in the bill, the Government must provide the leadership required to solve it, including building 10 per cent of new houses to accessible home standards.

Andy Wightman

I will be as brief as I can be.

We will support all the amendments in the group, with the following exceptions. On amendment 58, the minister seems to regard the issue as being dealt with in amendments 73 and 75. However, those amendments focus on healthcare and health needs, whereas the text that amendment 58 seeks to remove relates to “health effects of development”, which are a very different matter. That said, we will support amendments 73 and 75.

Amendment 82 seeks to remove provisions that were inserted at stage 2 with regard to the participation of young people. As we consider those provisions to be a valuable addition to the bill, we will vote against their removal. Alex Rowley quoted from the letter that we received from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, whose only observation on this very comprehensive and large bill is that we should not support amendment 82, for the reasons that Alex Rowley highlighted.

Amendment 80 seeks to remove the requirement to take into account the open spaces strategy when preparing a local development plan. We are not persuaded by the arguments that have been made for that. The bill covers other considerations such as disused railway infrastructure, and we cannot see how the open spaces strategy is any less important. We will therefore vote against that amendment, too.

Amendment 87 seeks to remove the provision that was secured by Daniel Johnson at stage 2 for the evidence report to assess the demand for and availability of student housing. As the detailed considerations involved in that matter are not covered by the wider provisions in section 15(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, we think that that particular provision remains useful, and we will therefore vote against its removal.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

On amendments 59, 62 and 73, the minister previously said that he wanted to ensure that none of the policy principles was lost. At stage 2, the committee supported an amendment in my name that required an analysis to be made, as part of the local development plan, of the extent to which the use of age and dementia-friendly design had helped to meet the housing needs of older people. As a result, under proposed new section 15(2E)(c) of the 1997 act, there will be

“an estimate of the new housing for older people ... in each year”

and the use of

“age and dementia friendly design in its construction”

so that we can see what progress local authorities are making. I also point out that proposed new section 15(2F) of the 1997 act defines the term

“age and dementia friendly design”

as taking

“into account ... needs, including ... mental health”.

I am sure that I do not need to persuade the Parliament of the importance of ensuring that we build homes that are dementia friendly. Along with Sandra White, who is the convener of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, I wrote a joint letter to the minister about concerns about removing that section of the bill. It also has the support of Age Scotland, which believes that the section is an important safeguard that will ensure that local authorities consider the building of dementia-friendly homes. The Government now proposes that we remove that duty. I would like to hear from the minister, in his summing up, how he thinks that that policy intention will be protected in the bill, given that he is seeking to remove it. If at all possible, I also want assurances that, in removing those provisions, we do not lose the essence of promoting new housing and using dementia-friendly design in constructing our homes.

The Presiding Officer

I invite the minister to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 57.

Kevin Stewart

As I said at the very beginning of my comments, this set of amendments considers the priorities that were put forward, removes duplication and tidies up what was previously in the bill.

I will turn to a few of the points that were made during the debate. I have probably talked more than anyone else about the need to get young people involved in the planning process. That is one of the reasons why, outwith the bill, we are considering digital planning and how we can involve young folk in that. At the moment, we have a pilot scheme at Galashiels academy that is considering the place standard tool. It clearly shows that young folk want things that are very different from the things that the older folk in their communities want. I am keen to ensure that young people are involved at every stage of the process, and amendment 82 seeks to make things much clearer than proposed new section 16ZA of the 1997 act, which it seeks to remove.

I will turn to some of the other things that have been mentioned, particularly about older folk and disabled people. Many members have been very good at speaking to me about what they see as requirements, and we have listened to members as we have moved forward. I see that a number of members around the chamber are nodding. I have spoken to Mr Simpson, Mr Stewart, Mr Balfour and Mr Gibson, who, it has to be said, has been vociferous on the issue. I have also spoken to Sandra White. As I said, my door is always open. If folk have not taken that opportunity, I urge them to do so next time.

Let us consider what we are doing in housing at the moment, because we drifted away from planning a little.

Pauline McNeill

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

I will, in a little bit.

Of the affordable housing that we delivered in 2017-18, 99 per cent was housing for varying need. On the affordable housing supply programme, I have said—again and again—to local authorities and housing associations that we are more than willing to be flexible with the benchmark moneys to deliver more of that type of housing right across Scotland, and I will continue to do so.

Pauline McNeill

Given that the amendments that I lodged at stage 2 became part of the bill, I simply ask for a response to my question about how the policy will still be contained in the bill if we remove those provisions. The minister has not mentioned the important issue of ensuring that local authorities build dementia-friendly homes.

Kevin Stewart

We will continue to consider the design of homes not only in relation to the bill, the national planning framework and the review of Scottish planning policy, but in relation to the delivery of the affordable supply programme. Beyond that, we will consider design in relation to the review of building standards. I have taken cognisance of the views that were expressed before stage 2 and at stage 2 about the needs of older and disabled people, and I will continue to do so.

I ask members to look at what was put into the bill at stage 2 and at my amendments, which refine what was there before. There has been no watering down of any of the principles that were put into the bill at that point, and I urge members to support my amendments.

Amendment 57 agreed to.

Amendment 58 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 58 agreed to.

Amendments 59 to 63 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 64 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 64 agreed to.

Amendment 191 not moved.

Amendments 65 to 67 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 68 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

Amendment 68B moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendment 68, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 69 to 73 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 192 moved—[Alex Rowley].

17:30  

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Against

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 61, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 192 agreed to.

Amendment 74 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 193 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Against

Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 61, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 193 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 11 concerns the protection of cultural venues and music venues. Amendment 175, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, is grouped with amendments 121, 127, 176 to 179, 129, 180, 131 and 182.

Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 175 requires live music and other cultural venues to be considered in local development plans. Indeed, all the amendments in this group revolve around one central issue, which is how to apply the agent of change principle to protect live music venues from the unintended consequences of new development nearby. This is a real and pressing planning issue. Many live music venues have closed in recent years, often because planning permission for a new development has been granted without the developer being required to mitigate the effects of noise from an existing venue, with the costs of mitigation then falling on the venue, which can be put out of business as a result.

The agent of change principle protects venues by making the developer, not the existing venue, responsible for noise mitigation. Many live music venues want agent of change to be given statutory force in the bill. Unfortunately, the Government does not. It would prefer that agent of change be a matter of planning policy, not planning law. The committee made a number of changes to give effect to agent of change at stage 2, but the Government’s amendments today would reverse almost all of those changes.

The minister met me recently to lay out his concerns about the changes that were made at stage 2, and our amendments today are designed precisely to address those concerns. We have offered a way for the Government to retain agent of change without endorsing the idea of culturally significant zones, which it does not support. It can do that by supporting amendments 177 and 178. By contrast, the Government’s amendment 129 would remove not only the idea of culturally significant zones but also the principle of agent of change.

In amendments 176 and 182, we have offered a form of words that puts beyond doubt that ultimate discretion lies with planning authorities, even where developers have failed to make reasonable provision to mitigate noise, in response to concerns of the Government that agent of change provisions might somehow remove discretion from planning authorities.

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)

As I understand it, the member’s argument is that if the amendments in his name are not agreed to and the amendments in Mr Stewart’s name are agreed to, agent of change will fall away from the bill. However, Mr Stewart wants to retain section 14F, which the member will recall was added at stage 2 as a result of an amendment in my name, to protect the agent of change principle in the bill. Given that section 14F will remain, why does the member think that agent of change will fall away from the bill, when we all want to keep it in?

Lewis Macdonald

Because, as Mr Tomkins will appreciate, although section 14F does no harm it simply restates the law as it stands. I will come on to that in a moment, in the context of the concerns that the Government has raised.

Amendment 180, in my name, provides that planning authorities may consult any organisation that represents live music venues, rather than just the Music Venue Trust. The minister’s amendment 131 would remove any such obligation to consult, and no body would be consulted on the matter.

Because we supported the changes that the committee made at stage 2, we will oppose all the Government amendments that seek to remove them.

Mr Tomkins mentioned his amendment at stage 2 that had the effect of inserting section 14F. As he knows, we want to strengthen section 14F through amendment 182, which we think will give effect to what is wanted. Section 14F as it stands simply restates the law as it stands. Under existing planning law, as Mr Tomkins must be aware, a planning authority may not make noise mitigation by an existing business a condition of granting planning permission for a development by a different business. That is simply not possible. It was true before, it is true now and section 14F, as it stands, will not change the meaning of the law at all.

A number of venue operators contacted MSPs this week to warn of the

“immediate threat to iconic venues in Scotland, such as King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut and Sub Club”,

if the principle of agent of change is removed from the bill, which is what the Government seeks to do. That threat is not addressed by the Tomkins provisions. Glasgow City Council could not impose costs directly on either venue as a condition of granting planning permission to someone else; that is all that section 14F currently prohibits. The immediate threat about which venue operators are worried is that a council might grant permission to a new developer without requiring the developer to cover the costs of noise mitigation that the venue itself might undertake. Section 14F simply does not address that risk.

Amendment 182 would require a planning authority in those circumstances to take particular account of whether the developer had made sufficient provision to mitigate the effect of noise from an existing venue. That would mean no extra costs for King Tut’s, because all extra costs would be borne by the developer, as the agent of change. Only if amendment 182 is agreed to will section 14F achieve the outcome that Mr Tomkins seeks to achieve. I hope that he and the minister will support amendment 182 in the spirit in which it was lodged.

The committee agreed at stage 2 to allow councils to designate “culturally significant zones” and to provide extra protection, which would be analogous with conservation status. We recognise that there are concerns about those provisions, so amendments 177 and 178, in my name, are designed to give the Parliament the option not to proceed with the approach, while retaining the agent of change principle. The minister’s amendment 129 would throw out both approaches at the same time, removing all the effective protection that was added at stage 2.

I urge members to reject the Government amendments and to support all the Labour amendments in this group, to strengthen the law in the way that I think that all parties want to strengthen it.

I move amendment 175.

Kevin Stewart

I agree that we need to protect and encourage our music industry’s significant cultural and economic contribution to our society. Certainly, our music venues should not find themselves at risk as a result of new development being proposed in their vicinity.

I have already given my commitment that we will include a clear statement of how our planning system should embrace the agent of change principle through the new national planning framework on which we are about to embark, which will embed the principle into the statutory development plan. We will continue to engage with operators of our music venues as we work it up. However, I did not wait for the NPF to come around. Last year, I asked the Government’s chief planner to write to all planning authorities to ensure that the agent of change principle is being applied now.

My amendments 121, 127 and 129 seek to remove the provisions for culturally significant zones from the bill. I can see how they had their origins in the agent of change principle, but they would be incredibly damaging to the venues and to the communities and vibrant town centres that they sit in—the very places that we want to protect and enhance.

At stage 2, what Mr Macdonald basically advocated were development-free zones that would have led to culture-free zones. He went too far and he still cannot admit it. During the discussions about the bill, everybody else in the chamber has compromised, but Mr Macdonald still does not see that he went too far. I hope that members will support my amendments 121, 127 and 129 to secure the removal of Mr Macdonald’s daft proposals.

Adam Tomkins’s amendment adding section 14F to the bill was agreed to at stage 2, and I am happy to support the retention of section 14F. I am content with Lewis Macdonald’s addition to it, so I will support amendment 182. I also recognise the desirability of supporting cultural venues, including music venues, in our towns and cities, so I am content to support amendment 175.

Mr Macdonald’s amendment 180 is unnecessary. The other statutory consultees are set out in secondary legislation, and I am happy to explore consultation with music venue representatives when revising the development management procedure regulations after the bill is passed. I ask members to support amendment 131, so that we can do that.

With the expanded provision in section 14F, Lewis Macdonald’s other amendments in this group will be unnecessary, and I ask him not to move them.

Pauline McNeill

I will speak to Lewis Macdonald’s amendment 182. The agent of change principle is very important and should be included in the bill to protect live music venues. The minister promised the industry that he would do that, but he has not done so.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work (Derek Mackay)

Nonsense.

Pauline McNeill

Nonsense! VisitScotland referred to four iconic venues—the minister might want to take note of this—that have been vital to the economy of Glasgow, the city that I represent: King Tut’s, which opened in 1990, the Classic Grand, which opened in 1860, the Sub Club, which is the longest-running underground dance club in the world, and the Barrowlands, which opened in 1934. All those venues are asking the minister to include the principle in the bill. All those venues, in my region of Glasgow, are telling me—

Kevin Stewart

Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill

I will let the minister in in a minute, but I want him to listen to this point first.

Those venues are telling me that if there was a development next door, there would be a requirement for them to provide noise mitigation, not the new development. I have just been on the phone to the owner of King Tut’s, who confirmed that. If the minister does not make things clear in the bill—

Adam Tomkins

Will the member take an intervention?

17:45  

Pauline McNeill

Hold on. Everybody wants to make an intervention.

If things are not made clear in the bill, then the minister risks not living up to the promise that he made. There have already been compromises.

Although section 14F is helpful, it does not put things beyond doubt. There is still a need for explicit provisions in the bill. The minister—I will give way to him in a minute—is arguing that the agent of change principle should be included in policy and in the form of a statement. He must know, as a legislator, that that is in no way as concrete as having it in the bill would be. The venues fear that they will not be able to rely on a statement—something that does not really have any meaning. We all know that legislation is the strongest provision.

Kevin Stewart

This is pitiful.

Members: Oh!

Kevin Stewart

Folk should read section 14F. I have given a commitment about the agent of change principle all the way through the passage of the bill—in fact, I gave a commitment about it before the bill came into being.

We have here a member who is sore about putting forward amendments that would have caused chaos and led to a lack of development. Members should read section 14F and read about the agent of change principle—we are going to go even further when it comes to policy. Please do not try to say that the bill does not cover the agent of change principle.

The Presiding Officer

I point out that the member gave way for an intervention rather than a speech.

Pauline McNeill

I stand here representing many of the venues, and I do not think that the minister is listening to any of them. They are saying that if we share the same intention and if the minister believes what I believe, then he should nail it down to make sure. It is not about compromising new development. The minister must know that. It is about ensuring that when new development comes along, venues are not compromised. For example, the Barrowlands venue has been there since 1930. Every day it has complaints from new developments and it has had to spend money on noise mitigation. Does the minister understand that that is the problem?

I ask the minister to reconsider, and to make sure that there is strong provision in the bill that the venues can rely on when it comes to planning. That is all that we are asking. I do not think that it is daft or too much to ask.

Adam Tomkins

I am genuinely puzzled by what Pauline McNeill and Mr Macdonald have said, because there is no amendment to remove section 14F, which will remain in the bill. It provides that

“a planning authority may not, as a condition of granting planning permission for a noise-sensitive development, impose on a noise source”—

such as King Tut’s or the Sub Club—

“additional costs relating to acoustic design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of noise.”

That is the agent of change principle, and it is in the bill.

Pauline McNeill

Section 14F is helpful, but we need belt and braces for the avoidance of doubt. As a member of this Parliament, I have spent 17 years dealing with planning authorities. I know that if something is not in the legislation, they can ignore it. We may have a difference of opinion—[Interruption.] The bill does not mention live music venues. What is wrong with some plain English in a bill—for once—that says that live music venues should be protected in law by the agent of change principle?

Andy Wightman

I do not want to intrude on disagreements, but at stage 2, I supported the amendments from both Adam Tomkins and Lewis Macdonald, on the condition that they would work together with the Government to rationalise the provisions for stage 3. That does not seem to have happened and I am disappointed. Perhaps it points to a broader issue with the process of this bill, in which the Government appears to have preferred to work with the Conservatives rather than collaborate more widely.

In the minister’s defence, although we remain sympathetic to culturally significant zones, we were concerned at stage 2 and we remain concerned at stage 3 that they are potentially unwieldy, so we will not support them. However, I am disappointed that the key attractions embodied in that idea have not been taken further forward.

We will support all the amendments in the group, except for amendments 129 and 139, because we wish to retain the agent of change principle in the bill.

Adam Tomkins

I am pleased to see, for a change, the Scottish Government and its principal Opposition working together in the public interest. That is a good thing, rather than something to be criticised.

Before I get into the substance of the matter, I need to correct something that I said inadvertently and in error at stage 2, when Lewis Macdonald, the minister, other members and I debated the issues. I inadvertently attributed comments to KSG Acoustics that I should have attributed to the Music Venue Trust. At the time, I wrote to them to apologise for the mistake. I also apologise to Parliament for having made that mistake.

As we have already heard, at stage 2, a series of amendments in Lewis Macdonald’s and my names were made to bring the agent of change principle into force in Scots planning law for the first time. For the avoidance of doubt, the agent of change principle is easy to state. The key is chronology. We want to avoid the situation in which an existing music venue finds that, as a result of a developer moving into its area, fresh noise mitigation measures must be put in place at the venue’s expense. That is the agent of change principle, and that is what section 14F of the bill, as amended at stage 2, seeks to do.

I am glad to hear the minister say that he will accept Lewis Macdonald’s amendment 182. So, too, will the Conservatives. Amendment 182 will add to section 14F: it will strengthen the provision even further to put beyond doubt protection of the agent of change principle in the bill. As Lewis Macdonald said a few moments ago, it is not a restatement of the legal position as it currently appears, but a change in the law. Section 14F does not reflect current legal practice or the current legal position. It will change the law, and amendment 182 will reinforce and underscore that change in order to make it stronger. For that reason, we accept amendment 182.

Lewis Macdonald

I welcome the fact that Adam Tomkins and Kevin Stewart have indicated support for amendment 182. That gives some force to the change in the law that section 14F will introduce. Mr Tomkins will agree that it would currently be unlawful for a planning authority to impose a condition on King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut as a condition of agreeing a planning application for another business. In that sense, without the amendment, his section was ineffective.

Adam Tomkins

Lewis Macdonald and I seek to achieve the same end, but by different means. We supported Lewis Macdonald’s amendments at stage 2, but are unable to do so now because of a critical thing that occurred between stages 2 and 3. The revised financial memorandum puts the costs of Lewis Macdonald’s amendments on culturally protected zones at up to £330 million. We do not think that that cost is in the public interest. That is the difference between our position, which the Government shares, and the position that is still endorsed by the Labour Party. However, there is no difference between us on the principle that we seek to have reflected appropriately in our planning law. There is a difference only of means.

I welcome the fact that, between stages 2 and 3, the minister has been open minded on the matter and I welcome the fact that he is now prepared to work with section 14F to ensure that it works both in law and in the policy that the Scottish Government proposes to make, in accordance with the national planning framework.

We will support all Kevin Stewart’s amendments in the group. Of Lewis Macdonald’s amendments we will support amendment 182, as I have said, and amendment 175. We think that section 14F would have worked well enough as it stands, but we are content that amendment 182 will strengthen it—or, at least, will not weaken it.

As I said, we cannot support Lewis Macdonald’s other amendments in the group. We strongly disagree with Labour’s ill-conceived and scaremongering press release earlier this month about the issues. With or without amendment 182, section 14F will keep the agent of change principle firmly in the bill. That is as it should be in Scots planning law. We can all agree on that point of principle.

Alex Rowley

Professor Tomkins said that he is pleased that the Tories and the Scottish National Party worked together in the public interest. I am not sure that it is in the public interest to deny the public equal rights with developers, and it is certainly not in the public interest to deny people a say over developments in their communities, as the bill will.

To move on, I strongly support Lewis Macdonald’s amendments in the group. He has done the work of speaking to people at live music venues across the country to ensure that their interests have been heard about during the bill’s passage.

Kevin Stewart

Alex Rowley knows that it is not only Mr Macdonald who has talked to folk from live music venues; I have done so, too—which is one reason why the note from the chief planner came out long before today. Mr Tomkins has talked to folk from live music venues, and the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs constantly talks to them and has relayed her views to me. Mr Rowley should not try to suggest that Labour members are the only people who have talked to folk from live music venues. Beyond that, he should grasp the fact that the agent of change principle is in section 14F.

Alex Rowley

I simply said that Lewis Macdonald has worked hard and has spoken to people from live music venues across the country. He is reflecting what those people told him.

The minister has pledged to implement the agent of change principle through planning policy, but what does that mean? It means that if the principle is violated, the only recourse for music venues will be through legal channels. Not many venues will have the funding or capacity for that. Does the minister think that that is acceptable?

Sandra White

King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut and most of the live venues in Glasgow city centre are in my constituency. Two weeks ago, I was at an open mic night at King Tut’s. I was not singing, but my nieces sing in a band. I have also been to live music venues where Pauline McNeill has sung in a band.

I am interested in the politics of the issue, but I am more interested in ensuring that live music venues stay open. In the beginning, I supported Lewis Macdonald’s proposal on the agent of change principle, and I still support that, but I draw his attention to what Adam Tomkins said—he must realise that the agent of change principle has not changed. I do not know where the idea has come from that live music venues will have to pay for soundproofing; it is in the bill that the agent of change will cover that.

I am grateful to the minister for listening not just to me, but to many others. I think that we have all met Geoff Ellis, who runs King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut. We also have the Sub Club and many other venues, although I will not mention them all. We have had lots of meetings. When a developer tried to open a hotel next to King Tut’s, I had loads of meetings with Geoff Ellis. That development did not go ahead, which gets to the nub of the situation. As the minister and others have said, live music venues will not have to pay for soundproofing; developers will need to pay for that if they wish to build hotels or housing, for example.

I do not support Lewis Macdonald’s amendments on culturally significant zones, but I support his amendments 175 and 182, which are good. Even some people in the music industry have expressed concern about CSZs, which they said could stop development in town centres and stop regeneration. We must listen to everybody: some people in the music industry expressed that view.

I support amendments 175 and 182, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, and the amendments in the name of the minister. However, we should be very careful about agreeing to Lewis Macdonald’s amendments in relation to culturally significant zones. The music industry on the whole is not in favour of those amendments and has raised concerns.

18:00  

Lewis Macdonald

Does Sandra White appreciate that the amendments in my name would remove all references to culturally significant zones?

Sandra White

I am very happy to support Lewis Macdonald’s amendments 175 and 182, but he has other amendments in relation to his view that the agent of change principle is not included in the bill. We disagree on that point, because I believe that the agent of change principle is in the bill, so the other amendments that Lewis Macdonald has lodged are not needed.

The Presiding Officer

I note that we have passed the agreed time limit by which the debate on this group of amendments should have finished. I exercise my power under standing orders rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate to continue beyond the time limit in order to avoid its being unreasonably curtailed. However, I ask members to be mindful of time.

I call Lewis Macdonald to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 175.

Lewis Macdonald

The minister asked whether I will compromise; I am only sorry that he does not appreciate the compromises that I have already offered. It was in that spirit that I lodged amendments 177 and 178, which were perhaps the only amendments in my name that the minister did not address in his remarks. Neither the minister nor Mr Tomkins offered any explanation for why they wish to remove all of section 14C of the bill, as amended, by supporting amendment 129, in the minister’s name, when they could support my amendments 177 and 178, which would remove all references to “culturally significant zones”, but would retain at the heart of the bill the agent of change principle. I invite Mr Tomkins, his colleagues and members of the Government to consider why they cannot support my amendments 177 and 178.

I welcome the broad support for my amendment 182, which will strengthen the bill, and for my amendment 175. I congratulate the Music Venue Trust and the music venues that have supported, and lobbied vigorously for, the amendments in my name. Venues from Orkney, Galashiels, Aberdeen, Paisley, Falkirk, Inverness, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee have come together to pursue the changes, and I know that they will continue to do so. In support of that continuing campaign for full protection under the law, I press amendment 175.

Amendment 175 agreed to.

Amendments 75 to 79 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 75 to 79?

Members: Yes.

The Presiding Officer

In that case, I will call the amendments in order.

Amendments 75 and 76 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 77 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 92, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 77 agreed to.

Amendments 78 and 79 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 80 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 85, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 80 agreed to.

Amendment 81 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 12 is on a list of persons seeking land for self-build housing. Amendment 117, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 120 and 123.

Graham Simpson

At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that aimed to make it easier for people to build their own homes by making self-build plots easily identifiable through a register. I wanted the register to be publicly visible so that people who wished to build their own homes could express interest in a plot. The amendment was not agreed to, but I did not give up hope.

My amendments in this group seek to facilitate self-build housing. Amendment 120 requires councils to establish lists of people seeking land for self-build housing. Clearly, we would need to have regard to the general data protection regulation.

Amendment 117 says that planning authorities would need

“to have regard to the list”

when preparing their local development plans. A similar scheme was put in place by the Greater London Authority, where public land was released for development across the authority; it helped to increase housing supply across the area. The scheme, which was run by the GLA, was imaginatively called the build your own London home register. Having such a register could empower people to shape their living spaces in the way that they want and contribute to vibrant and varied communities. Facilitating that custom-build approach would empower individuals and groups, strengthen neighbourhood links and create local jobs.

Amendment 123 relates to self-build housing within masterplan consent areas. It provides that

“A masterplan consent area scheme may, under section 54B(1)(a), specify”

that it provides authorisation for self-build housing development.

We can and should be doing exciting work on self-build housing in Scotland. We could, for example, replicate the exciting Graven Hill development in Oxfordshire, the United Kingdom’s largest self-build development, as seen on television’s “Grand Designs”. That was an old Ministry of Defence site, which was taken over by the local council and marketed to people who wanted to build a home. There is a fantastic mix of houses and apartments there, including affordable ones. A Scottish version in the right place would be a winner and, with these amendments, it is my hope that we can make that happen.

I move amendment 117.

Andy Wightman

Amendment 117 requires planning authorities, in preparing local development plans, to have regard to a list of persons who are interested in land for self-build housing, as set out in amendment 120. As Graham Simpson said, he introduced a version of amendment 117 at stage 2.

Greens want more self-procurement of housing; indeed, we want it to provide around half of all new housing, as happens in most normal European countries, and we want to eliminate the speculative volume house-building industry. However, we do not think that the bill is the place to do that, because the procurement method is not strictly a planning matter. All land that is allocated for housing could be used for self-procured housing, as is common in continental Europe. However, the approach in Mr Simpson’s amendments 117 and 120 is to put self-procurement in a ghetto rather than the mainstream. I see that Mr Simpson is chuckling. If he wishes to intervene, I am happy to take an intervention.

Amendment 123 has greater merit but, even here, it is not clear how the procurement methods can be specified in planning. Nevertheless, as the amendment is focused on masterplan consent areas, we will support it, given that that is a new form of consent and is likely to have greater flexibility in its deployment.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to support the amendments in the group. Mr Simpson has worked positively with me to develop the proposals to replace the amendment on the issue that he lodged at stage 2.

The Government has an on-going programme of work to support and promote self and custom build in Scotland, including the £4 million self-build loan fund and seven pilot projects. I agree with Mr Simpson that the planning system should more actively support that approach to housing delivery. In theory, any site that is suitable for housing is potentially suitable for self-build homes.

The amendments improve on Mr Simpson’s stage 2 amendment, as they focus more on linking people with available sites. Self-build housing could also be a good option in masterplan consent areas, where we want diverse good-quality development that responds to local needs and aspirations.

I encourage all members to support the amendments.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)

Against

Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 93, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 117 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I call the minister to move amendment 82.

Kevin Stewart

I have listened to members’ comments and I will not move amendment 82.

Amendment 82 not moved.

Amendments 83 and 84 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 13 is on local place plans. Amendment 85, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 104, 195 and 196.

Kevin Stewart

At stage 2, the committee agreed to amendments that will require planning authorities to set out the assistance that is available to communities for the preparation of local place plans. We consider the scope of those amendments to be too narrow, as they will require information to be provided only on the assistance available from the planning authority. We expect that assistance will also be available from other sources, including policy or guidance that is prepared by the Scottish Government, tools such as the place standard and support from various community support organisations.

Local sources of information, support or funding will be available to each local authority. It would be helpful for planning authorities to signpost such wider support. Amendments 85 and 104 therefore adjust the requirements for them to set out the assistance that is provided to communities for local place plans, allowing that to cover assistance from other sources. I hope that members will support that.

18:15  

Alex Rowley’s amendments 195 and 196 seek to introduce a review period for local place plans. I agree that there would be value in reviewing the operation and effectiveness of such plans. As it would be an important element of the wider reform package, we want to see communities utilising that tool to influence the future development of where they stay. I therefore support amendment 195.

I do not support amendment 196, which also provides for a review of the operation and effectiveness of local place plans. This version goes on potentially to link the review outcome with the introduction of a community right of appeal. Members will be aware of my views on the introduction of such a right of appeal into the planning system. I believe that it would only introduce additional conflict at the end of the process. We will have a full debate on that later. Our proposals to improve engagement with communities at earlier stages go across the whole planning system—from the national planning framework to pre-application consultation—and not just local place plans. It is certainly not appropriate to tie a parliamentary decision on introducing appeals to just one element of our broad planning reform package when there will be a wide range of ways in which communities can influence the future of their places. I therefore ask Mr Rowley not to press amendment 196.

I move amendment 85.

Alex Rowley

Amendment 195 introduces a duty to review the effectiveness of local place plans after seven years. Amendment 196 introduces a duty to review the effectiveness of such place plans after seven years, with a requirement being placed on Parliament to consider amending appeal rights if the plans have not effectively engaged communities in the planning system.

Labour accepts the Government’s amendment 85 to ensure that wider support is available for those who develop local place plans. However, we remain deeply sceptical about the idea of such plans and maintain that the Government has failed to provide any evidence that they will transform community engagement in the planning system.

The committee heard several concerns about how local place plans would work in practice, their status and the level of influence that they would have in the planning system. They included concerns about the level of resources available to community groups to produce such plans.

In evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee, the Scottish Property Federation estimated that the cost of producing a local place plan could be between £25,000 and £30,000. Further, the capacity of communities—especially disadvantaged ones—to produce such plans would be difficult to assess. Factors would include the extent to which an authority would actually have regard to a local place plan that it received; the extent to which such plans might displace community time and resources from engagement with the preparation process for local development plans; and the extent to which local place plans might be constrained by the requirement to reflect the local development plan or the NPF and other spatial plans as agreed development plans took place.

For example, Ballantrae community council said:

“The Local Place Plan initiative is set to fail and increase inequalities unless communities themselves are given funds and access to experts to produce their own plan.”

Moray Council considered that

“The Bill should focus on further integration of early and continuing engagement, rather than introduce another layer of plans and further complications to the system.”

Scottish Environment LINK said:

“The fact that they are not part of the local development plan means that they are likely to be given pretty limited weight, and we think that there is a risk that, as formulated, they could end up being quite a distraction from engagement in the local development plan. We are not keen on them as they are currently being progressed. We would much rather see a concentration on getting better engagement in the local development plan process”.

Not much has changed since stage 2 beyond local authorities now having to take into account local place plans. Does the minister realistically think that that will make a difference to some of the criticisms outlined? As it stands, the introduction of the local place plans risks communities spending significant time, effort and resources on something that may or may not be taken into account by the planning authorities. Without any meaningful outcome for communities, the significant resources would be better used on the broad engagement of communities in their local development plans.

We do not have confidence in what is proposed now. It is right that we review it in seven years’ time to see whether it has worked. We need to ask whether communities have the same say over developments in their communities that developers have. If the answer is that they do not, we need to give them more say.

Graham Simpson

I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments on local place plans. We went through them extensively in committee, including at stage 2, and we have just heard Alex Rowley go into the matter in some depth.

I will talk about some of the amendments in the group. The minister’s amendment 104 adjusts the requirement for planning authorities to set out the assistance that is available to communities for the preparation of local place plans. That was a key concern. The amendment will allow that to cover any such assistance rather than just assistance from the planning authority. I think that there has been a bit of confusion over that. Some people have thought that the minister was trying to roll back on potential funding, but I do not see it that way. It is quite the opposite: the assistance could be widened beyond just councils.

Alex Rowley’s amendment 195 seeks to ensure that ministers review how local place plans are working after seven years. That is sensible. We should keep an eye on how they are performing. However, amendment 196 goes beyond local place plans and takes in a community right to appeal. Perhaps it is a cheeky amendment from Mr Rowley, but I think that we should stick to the subject. We will support amendment 195, but not amendment 196.

Andy Wightman

We will support all the amendments in the group. I commend Alex Rowley for amendment 195 and his “cheeky” amendment 196—which, unless I am mistaken, is missing a subsection (3). I do not know whether that is a drafting error or whether any substantive legal provisions are missing from the amendment, but no doubt that will be picked up in due course.

Mr Rowley’s amendments go some way towards addressing the concerns that witnesses raised at stage 1 about the real value to be gained from local place plans. Views on local place plans were mixed in committee. I was not persuaded that they would add anything of substance. I took the committee’s view that they could and I therefore went on to support them, but I remain sceptical. Amendment 195 in particular will enable a proper review to take place and amendment 196 will enable Parliament to take a view on what to do should it be resolved that local place plans are not ensuring that communities’ needs are being addressed in the planning system.

Kevin Stewart

On Mr Rowley’s point that local place plans only have to be taken into account in local development plans, I am sure that he recognises that the national planning framework has to be taken into account when it comes to local development plans. I am sure that he would not think that local authorities would ignore the national planning framework.

I have always wanted community planning and spatial planning to be intertwined, and I think that local place plans provide an opportunity for exactly that. Local place plans will empower communities where communities themselves are able to set out a vision for their place. There has been general support for the introduction of local place plans, including in the survey of children and young people that was undertaken by Young Scot as part of the consultation on planning reform.

Much of the detail about how local place plans will work in practice will derive from secondary legislation, backed up by supportive guidance. All that will be subject to consultation by Parliament and to additional impact assessment. Guidance will be prepared by the Government, and tools such as the place standard are constantly developing. There will also be support from various community support organisations such as Planning Aid for Scotland. Further sources of information, support or funding particular to each planning authority will be available locally.

Obviously, it will be wise, following implementation, to consider how local place plans have worked; I have absolutely no problem with that. I am probably much more optimistic than some others about what can be achieved, but communities rise to the challenge. Some communities already have their own local place plans; let us see many more of them across the country.

Amendment 85 agreed to.

Amendments 86 to 97 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

Andy Wightman

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We are not content to have those amendments moved en bloc.

The Presiding Officer

I asked for them to be moved en bloc, but I will put the questions individually until we get to amendment 87.

Andy Wightman

I beg your pardon. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer

That is quite all right. I am glad that you are on the ball, Mr Wightman. [Interruption.] No—he is absolutely right. He said earlier that there would be an objection to amendment 87.

Amendment 86 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 110, Against 10, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 87 agreed to.

Amendments 88 to 97 agreed to.

18:29 Meeting suspended.  18:37 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

Group 14 is on local development plans and examination. Amendment 194, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 118, 98, 99 and 119.

Andy Wightman

Amendment 194 would reinstate the opportunity for people who have made representations on a local development plan to be heard at any examination of the plan. I say “reinstate” because that opportunity was previously available under section 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, but was removed when the provisions in part 2 of the 1997 act were wholly replaced by alternative provisions in the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. I have therefore lodged a modest amendment that would give the appointed person the opportunity to hear from objectors, which was previously a valuable part of the examination process.

We do not agree with amendments 118 and 119 in the name of Graham Simpson.

I move amendment 194.

Graham Simpson

I apologise—I did not hear what Andy Wightman said at the end about whether he will support my amendments 118 and 119.

The Presiding Officer

I invite Andy Wightman to clarify his last statement.

Andy Wightman

I said at the end of my short contribution that we will not support amendments 118 and 119.

Graham Simpson

People get frustrated with the planning system when they see councils rejecting applications, only for the rejection to be overturned on appeal. One of the arguments that developers use—often it is successful—is that local development plans have not allocated sufficient housing. The outcome of a successful appeal can be a frustrated community; equally, it can be a developer thinking that they could have done without the delay. If councils got their housing allocations right and, crucially, agreed at the outset, we could avoid all that.

Amendment 119, which is in my name, is an attempt to improve on that situation. It would give an appointed person—probably a reporter—a new power if they are

“not satisfied”

with

“the amount of land allocated for housing”.

Alex Rowley

What has happened in Fife is a classic example of that. The planning minister—I think that, at the time, it was Derek Mackay—increased the number of houses that should be available in the SESplan area, which includes Fife. If members met the head of planning and the strategic director of planning in Fife Council, they would tell members that there is more than enough land available and that it is the Scottish Government that has got it wrong. Amendment 119 would not help when—as was the case in Aberdour—a planning application that has been through all the local planning processes is refused, but that decision is overturned by the Government on the ground that there is not enough housing land. That happened despite the head of planning and the strategic development manager saying that the Government’s figures were wrong. I am not sure that amending the bill simply to say that enough housing land supply must be allocated would be satisfactory to the people who have suffered as a result of that disagreement in Fife.

Graham Simpson

Alex Rowley has spoken for longer than I had intended to speak to my amendments, but I am still not actually sure whether he agrees with amendment 119. Surely we need local plans to allocate the right amount of housing and for that to be agreed at the outset. Amendment 119 has the support of Homes for Scotland, so I think that it is worth accepting. It could reduce the number of appeals and the amount of frustration about the system. Everybody would know where they stand from the start, which is what we should be aiming for. I hope that that would lead to better practice and rigorous local development plans, but I also hope that the power would not be used.

Amendment 118 is a technical amendment that would support amendment 119.

We cannot support Andy Wightman’s amendment 194. It was lodged so late that we had no chance to amend it before the deadline. We like the principle behind it—it would ensure that communities and complainants would have a right to be heard—but, unfortunately, under the amendment as drafted, hearings could involve an almost infinite number of people. I would have liked to have discussed the matter with Andy Wightman in advance. That was not to be, which is a shame.

Kevin Stewart

It is important that local development plans be properly and independently scrutinised prior to their adoption. Wider provisions in the bill will ensure that that is done earlier in the process, through scrutiny of an evidence report by an independent person, which will ensure that housing requirements are assessed up front. Authorities will be expected after that to allocate sites for development, and to include the sites in a proposed plan that is then independently examined at the end of the process. The amendments in group 14 relate to the duties and powers of reporters who will undertake that final examination.

Andy Wightman’s amendment 194 would reintroduce a right to be heard at the examination stage for all parties who have made an unresolved representation on the plan. Similar provisions were removed by the 2006 act because it was argued at the time that members of the public might not feel comfortable participating in such proceedings with lawyers and planning consultants who have been retained by developers. Many issues can be fully understood and considered through written submissions; the current arrangements allow for a more proportionate and efficient approach. I do not want to add further conflict, time and cost to the system. I am also concerned that amendment 194 was lodged very late and without wider consultation. Therefore, I cannot support it.

On the other amendments in the group, at the moment, when a local development plan that has obvious shortcomings is put forward for adoption, there can be pressure on the reporter or, indeed, on ministers, to fix the problem. However, I believe that where a plan fails to allocate sufficient land for housing, for example, the solution should come, in the first instance, from the local authority rather than through an intervention by central Government. The amendments will put responsibility for local development plans firmly in the hands of local authorities.

18:45  

Reporters can recommend modifications to plans to address problems that they have identified in examination. My amendments 98 and 99 will give the reporter a further option in situations in which it is clear that shortcomings of plans cannot be addressed by relatively minor changes and adjustments. They mean that the reporter could recommend to an authority that it amend its plan immediately after it has been adopted. In some cases, it is in everyone’s interest to have a plan in place, even when there are outstanding issues that need to be addressed. A requirement for changes to be made to the plan soon after it has been adopted could ensure that it does the job that it is supposed to do in a timely way.

There is much debate on planning for housing—it has always been a very contentious issue. A plan-led approach to housing development can be undermined if plans fail to allocate sufficient land for housing. Graham Simpson’s amendments 118 and 119 are similar to mine, but provide a further option that aims specifically to ensure that plans allocate sufficient land for housing. Where that is not the case, the amendments would allow the reporter to return the plan to the authority so that it can allocate more land to ensure that the housing needs of the area can be properly met. I agree that that could also be a useful option in some circumstances.

Local development plans have a crucial role to play in the planning system, but we can have a plan-led system only if those plans tackle their area’s development needs properly. I have considered how the bill can best support that in a way that reflects our wider aims of planning reform. There might not have been much agreement evident in the earlier stages of the bill, but it is clear that there is cross-party support for further decentralisation of planning powers. I therefore ask all members to support my amendments 98 and 99, and Graham Simpson’s amendments 118 and 119.

Andy Wightman

I will make a couple of comments as I wind up the debate on the group.

Kevin Stewart talked about members of the public being uncomfortable in the presence of lawyers and developers. I think that that was a very astute observation, and it highlights everything that is wrong with a planning system in which large private interests that can afford lawyers have disproportionate sway compared with members of the public.

Kevin Stewart

Those were not my words. It was Johann Lamont, the then Deputy Minister for Communities, who said, during the scrutiny of the Planning (Scotland) Bill in 2006, that

“formal inquiries can sometimes be lengthy and complex and are not the best place for people to feel comfortable in making their case.”—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 28 March 2006; c 3358.]

Andy Wightman

I recognise those words of Johann Lamont from 2006. The point makes no difference to my observations.

I did not sufficiently explain why we are not supporting Graham Simpson’s amendment 119. It would be courteous for me to do so now, for the record. There can be many reasons why not enough land is allocated for housing. We think that a simple consideration of the land that is allocated is a crude measure. Many sites are not developable due to reasons outwith the planning system, such as land ownership and infrastructure requirements. We need a planning system that is more plan led and in which things are not done at the behest of the volume house-building industry. I think that amendment 119 would undermine a move to a more plan-led system.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 194 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Against

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 194 disagreed to.

Amendment 118 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 91, Against 28, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 118 agreed to.

Amendment 98 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 98 agreed to.

Amendment 99 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 99, Against 21, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 99 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I am conscious that we are up against the time limit for this group. I am minded to accept a motion without notice from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to extend the time limit for group 14 by 10 minutes. [Interruption.] We are nearing the end, colleagues.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the 4th time limit be extended by 10 minutes.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Amendment 119 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 92, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 119 agreed to.

After section 3

Amendment 120 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 113, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 120 agreed to.

Section 5—Key agencies

Amendment 100 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Amendment of National Planning Framework and local development plans

Amendments 101 to 103 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 121 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 95, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 121 agreed to.

Section 9—Local place plans

Amendment 104 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 195 moved—[Alex Rowley]—and agreed to.

Amendment 196 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Against

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 92, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 196 disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 15 will be the last group to be considered today. It is a short group, after which we will move to decision time. Amendment 122, on locally significant buildings, is the only amendment in the group.

19:00  

Graham Simpson

I was the first to speak this afternoon, and I will be the last. I promised to keep things brief, and I will stick to that with this amendment.

Amendment 122 relates to local place plans—it is an attempt to make them better. At stage 2, I brought forward an idea that communities could identify locally significant buildings that are important to them. That did not go through at stage 2, so I have slightly changed the idea, and the amendment says merely that a local community can “identify land and buildings” that it considers important. The amendment would enhance the local place plan idea and would give people a real say in what is important to them in their communities.

I will end there, because I know that members want to leave.

I move amendment 122.

Kevin Stewart

I support amendment 122.

The Presiding Officer

I take it that Mr Simpson has nothing further to add.

Graham Simpson

You are quite right, Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Abstentions

Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 99, Against 20, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 122 agreed to.

Section 10—Masterplan consent area schemes

Amendment 123 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Business Motion

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-17814, in the name of Graeme Dey, setting out a change to this week’s business.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Thursday 20 June 2019—

after

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions

insert

followed by Ministerial Statement: Update on Scottish Government Review of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S5M-17815, on a committee substitution.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that Daniel Johnson be appointed to replace Kezia Dugdale as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Education and Skills Committee.—[Graeme Dey]

Decision Time

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

We come to decision time. There is one question to be put.

The question is, that motion S5M-17815, in the name of Graham Dey, on a committee substitution, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that Daniel Johnson be appointed to replace Kezia Dugdale as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Education and Skills Committee.

Unforgotten Forces Consortium

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

I will get started, because it is late. I do not need to tell members the obvious.

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-17435, in the name of Maurice Corry, on the unforgotten forces consortium. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises what it considers the great achievement of the Unforgotten Forces Consortium in being a prime example of an excellent collaborative project and bringing together 16 partners, led by Poppyscotland, from across the military and civilian sectors to provide advice, information and practical support to veterans aged 65 and over; understands that consortium members have provided 6,000 episodes of various types of support in its first 18 months; congratulates the consortium on winning an award at the Soldiering On Awards, and notes the calls on both the UK and Scottish governments to work with the consortium to review future funding options so that it can continue this innovative model of providing new and enhanced services beyond its current funding term and support older veterans in the West Scotland region and across Scotland who have served their country with great distinction.

19:06  

Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)

First, I declare that I am an armed forces veteran. I am grateful to the members who have stayed on, after a long session in the chamber, for a pertinent debate on our armed forces.

It is an honour to open this members’ business debate and to speak of the amazing work of the unforgotten forces consortium.

When a person leaves the armed forces, they leave behind what feels like family, but when they return to so-called normal life, they often take overwhelming burdens with them. Of course, most veterans transition back into their communities well. However, others, whether experiencing physical injuries, loneliness or mental health issues, require services that offer extra support.

In Scotland, we are fortunate to have a multitude of charities and organisations that stand ready to help veterans improve their quality of life. That help is necessary. More than half of veterans live with a disability or long-term health condition, and knowing who they can turn to can be the biggest step forward in receiving advice and support.

Over time, our response has become more attuned to the layered nature of support that veterans require. For example, if a veteran is struggling with a problem, whether big or small, it is rare that that is the only challenge that they face. For instance, an older veteran with hearing loss could also be struggling with social isolation and a lack of daily interaction. The unforgotten forces consortium is one of the greatest examples of a collaborative and co-operative response serving Scotland’s older veterans. It connects the private sector and the third sector to offer veterans a wealth of support to tackle those issues.

The consortium, which was established in July 2017, is a strong partnership between 16 organisations—military and civilian—all of which are geared towards helping older veterans tackle their different needs. Kick started with a £4 million grant from the aged veterans fund, the consortium has been given the task of delivering a three-year programme to support veterans aged 65 and over, as well as their families, across Scotland. With one year to go in its current phase, it is clear to me—as it should be to us all—that future funding for the project would be an investment in the quality of life for older veterans.

The consortium aims to increase the support that is available for those veterans. As a whole, the project seeks to provide new and enhanced services covering health and wellbeing, social isolation, advice, practical help and arts engagement for older veterans.

A list of the members of the consortium demonstrates the range and depth of their expertise: Poppyscotland; Age Scotland; the Defence Medical Welfare Service; the Scottish older people’s assembly; Fares4Free, which was founded by David Gibson, who is in the public gallery; the Royal Air Forces Association; Luminate; Music in Hospitals and Care Scotland; Action on Hearing Loss; the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association; Citizens Advice Scotland; Erskine Hospital; ILM (Highland); Scottish War Blinded; Legion Scotland; and the University of the West of Scotland. Those partners offer a complementary mix of emotional and practical support, which means that, together, they capture the entire wellbeing of the veteran.

In promoting interconnected collaboration through referral pathways, the consortium has made the best use of the charitable provision that already exists in Scotland. Of course, today, I can provide only a flavour of the work of those charities. I wish that I could cover them all, but I will highlight a few samples.

The Defence Medical Welfare Service, which I have had the pleasure of working with several times, offers emotional support and practical services along healthcare pathways. By liaising with its partners, it encourages referrals to local support services that help veterans in their recovery and overall wellbeing.

Poppyscotland, which leads the consortium, offers assistance and practical guidance to veterans and their families, as well as to those who are still serving in the armed forces. Since 2017, it has aimed to alleviate feelings of loneliness and isolation among older veterans by offering its break away service, which provides bespoke holiday packages for older veterans and their families. I have read of trips to places that range from London to the Highlands and even Jersey.

I cannot speak too highly of the Erskine activity centre in my region, which I very much enjoyed visiting last year. At the centre, Erskine gives older veterans who are based in Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, East Dunbartonshire and West Dunbartonshire the opportunity to try a variety of daily activities and offers them workshops in woodwork, music and computing, among other things. Those classes provide a wonderful way of reducing loneliness and introducing older veterans to new skills that they perhaps never realised that they could have.

The way in which the 16 organisations in the consortium function as a collaborative group highlights their effectiveness and shared purpose. The benefits of the unforgotten forces project are immense and far reaching. The co-operation between its partners means that veterans and their families face far less confusion and bewilderment when they approach an organisation for help. By taking the burden off their shoulders and sharing it across appropriate partners, the project goes a long way towards relieving the stress of being unsure of who to turn to. In approaching one organisation, one is in effect reaching out to all the partner organisations.

The consortium’s impact is clear. In its first 21 months, it provided 7,300 episodes of support to our older veterans, which is incredible. At the heart of that success is the efficiency and effectiveness of its referral pathway. The close-link approach allows staff in the organisations to connect with one another at a national management level and at the local grass-roots level. As Glen MacDonald, Poppyscotland’s unforgotten forces co-ordinator, has said, the consortium is a force multiplier.

The project has opened doors wide for conversation between the partners. They can more easily and readily discuss the best ways to provide a veteran support network and they can trade experiences and expertise to find the right solution for each veteran’s case.

It is right that the consortium’s work and impact have met the appreciative commendation that they deserve. In April, the group won a 2019 soldiering on award in the working together category for being a great example in its co-operative referrals. Surely such accolades speak of the need for unforgotten forces funding to continue beyond June 2020. The combined efforts of the partners show that the good work deserves to be secured for the future. It would be a disservice to Scotland’s older veterans if the enhanced services were limited in what they could offer. For that reason, I hope that the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments will work closely with the consortium to determine the available funding options.

The impact of the unforgotten forces project is clear. For older veterans who need guidance and help, the consortium stands ready to come alongside and direct them to the right port of call. That approach seeks to capture the veteran’s mental and physical wellbeing. As the current programme is set to expire next year, it is important to continue the funding that the consortium relies on. We have to secure the future of the unforgotten forces partnership and the veterans they serve.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Perhaps members will have noticed—or perhaps not—that the clock to time speeches cannot operate tonight. Do not ask me why; the reason is technological. Men have been put on the moon, but we cannot do clocks.

Members will have to measure their speeches in real time. It is now 19:13 in military time—[Interruption.] Thank you, Mr Lyle—I do not need your comments. I ask you to pay attention to the time; you will be the exemplar.

19:13  

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

I was going to ask why the clock had stopped.

I thank Maurice Corry for bringing the debate to the chamber. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate by speaking about Scottish War Blinded and the unforgotten forces consortium. I thank Richard Baker for his illuminating briefing, which highlighted the work that Scottish War Blinded has undertaken as part of the consortium.

Making my speech this evening is very personal for me. My support for Maurice Corry’s motion comes from a general sense of social responsibility, but the subject also touches on my life personally and professionally.

Like most families, my family has a long history of service in the Scottish armed forces. My grandfather was a sergeant in the Army during the first world war, and my father was in the Royal Air Force during the second world war, so two generations of my family have served my country and preserved our way of life for us, my children and my grandchildren.

As a young boy, I served in the 2166 Hamilton squadron of the air training corps—that will surprise many people. That experience helped to shape the man I am today, and it gave me a small insight into what it takes to be a member of the armed forces—in other words, what a person must be prepared to give.

That is why, during my time as a local councillor, I made servicemen and women my priority. I pressed, and eventually worked with, North Lanarkshire Council to ensure that servicemen and women in my constituency were not put at an unfair disadvantage because of their service. We changed the rules to ensure that their housing application dates were inclusive of the time that they had spent in the service of their country. They fought for us, so we should fight for them.

Perhaps more than ever, the work that charities in the unforgotten forces consortium are doing for our veterans is crucial. In its short 18-month life, the 15 separate charitable organisations that make up the consortium have collaborated seamlessly, touched the lives of numerous veterans and their families in many different ways, and met their individual needs through the pooling of ideas and resources. The consortium has been recognised through the soldiering on awards, and I offer my congratulations on that success. It is heartening to think of what it will achieve in the future, considering what it has already managed to achieve in a short timeframe.

As its name suggests, Scottish War Blinded works tirelessly in its particular role of supporting veterans who have suffered sight loss as a result of injuries sustained while in action. Through its activities as part of the consortium, Scottish War Blinded has been working alongside Age Scotland and Action on Hearing Loss to improve the lives of veterans with impaired hearing or sight, which is a significant group when one considers that research has found a causal link between post-traumatic stress disorder and sight loss.

The key to providing proper support is early intervention, so the sub-group of the consortium has been devising mechanisms to ensure that those in need specifically due to sight or hearing loss are identified at an early stage. The sub-group is working to raise awareness among veterans in Scotland not only of the services that are on offer, but of the need to ensure that veterans get themselves screened. As such, the sub-group hopes to aid in the provision of veteran screening and is encouraging medical practitioners who issue certificates of visual impairment to ask their patients, as a matter of course, whether they have served in the armed forces.

I am proud to say that the Scottish Government has shown great support to the outstanding organisation. The Government’s continued commitment to the consortium demonstrates its gratitude to and admiration for those who have served this country.

How much time do I have left, Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

A minute and a half.

Richard Lyle

Okay. One of the few things that all members of the Parliament can agree on is that our veterans deserve to be cared for, given the contribution and sacrifices that they and their families have made on our behalf. The cross-party group on armed forces and veterans community demonstrates the common will that exists across the chamber to meet those needs, and I thank the group’s current and past members for the work that they do.

The consortium has been building on the UK Government’s veterans strategy. In order to develop a strategy that works for Scotland, the CPG and the Scottish Government have been meeting to discuss the needs, ideas, concerns and hopes for the future of the consortium members, and of veterans and their families. It is in that spirit that I offer my unreserved and on-going support for the motion and for the work of the unforgotten forces consortium. I thank Maurice Corry for bringing the motion to the chamber.

19:18  

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

It is always great to know that my speech will always be under four minutes, and that the Presiding Officer will not be able to give me too much of a hard time.

I declare an interest in that I, like Maurice Corry, am officially a veteran. I thank my colleague Maurice Corry for securing this important debate, which recognises the achievements of the unforgotten forces consortium and calls on the UK and Scottish Governments to review future funding options in order to guarantee the project for the long term. Let me set out why securing such funding is vital for our veterans.

Since the unforgotten forces project launched in summer 2017, it has provided more than 6,000 instances of support for veterans across Scotland, including free transport for essential travel, social support to counter loneliness and help with hearing loss. I am delighted that the project has won the working together award at the 2019 soldiering on awards. That award is thoroughly deserved.

The unforgotten forces consortium has helped so many veterans live full and satisfying lives and that should be reason enough for the Scottish Government to secure long-term funding for the project.

I have seen the work of the unforgotten forces consortium at first hand in the Highlands and Islands region. I was delighted to attend the launch of the hearing forces service in Fort George last summer. The service aims to help veterans with hearing loss and tinnitus, as well as their families and carers. Hearing loss affects many ex-servicemen. When I joined the army, we were not issued with hearing protectors. I know that firing small arms and tank guns has affected my hearing; I also suffer from tinnitus. I therefore have huge sympathy with those in the same boat, especially those who struggle to adjust to living with hearing aids. That is why the work of hearing forces is so important. The service provides support both before and after hearing aids have been fitted, giving veterans the help that they need to get used to them. Too many veterans have put their hearing aids in a drawer because they could not come to terms with the extra noise that they created.

I would also like to pay tribute to ILM Highland, which operates the Highland veterans handyperson service as part of the unforgotten forces project. The service helps veterans with odd jobs and small repairs around the home, which some find difficult due to disability and/or limited mobility.

Before I finish, how can I not mention the work of Poppyscotland? It is the lead partner in the unforgotten forces consortium, and last year, it raised more than £2 million from its poppy appeal to help veterans and their families. Every year, I am proud to wear the poppy, not only in remembrance of first world war losses but in recognition of every conflict since, in which our servicemen and women have sacrificed so much to defend this country.

The unforgotten forces consortium makes a massive contribution to improving veterans’ quality of life. I look forward to hearing the minister set out what support the Scottish Government can commit to so that the unforgotten forces consortium can continue its vital work for our veterans across Scotland, especially those in the Highlands and Islands.

19:22  

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

I thank Maurice Corry for bringing this debate to the chamber and indeed for all his work as convener of the cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans community. We had an interesting presentation about the unforgotten forces consortium at the CPG’s last meeting.

The Scottish veterans commissioner, Charlie Wallace, recently released a report that tracked the progress of the Scottish Government in reaching the targets set by his predecessor. He stated that the areas of veterans’ care that need most improvement are

“predominantly in areas where a joined-up approach to thinking and delivery is required, often across a number of bodies.”

The work of the unforgotten forces consortium since its establishment in October 2017 provides a shining example of the benefits that just such a co-operative approach across a number of bodies provides. Over halfway through the project, the consortium has, I think, so far recorded 7,200 instances of helping older veterans—or 7,300 instances, according to Maurice Corry. It was good to see the consortium being recognised for the success of its collaborative approach when it won the Forces in Mind Trust working together award. The consortium was also shortlisted for the best pioneering project category at the recent Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations charity awards.

Examples of the help that the consortium provides to veterans aged 65 and over include free transport for essential travel, advice about keeping their homes warm in winter, help with hearing loss—as we have heard from other members—practical and emotional support before and after discharge from hospital, and social support to counter loneliness. Practical support provided by the consortium to veterans and their families is helping to improve their everyday lives. The minister rightly advocates a holistic approach to the support of veterans. I agree with him. The consortium’s work has consistently provided a positive example of the benefits of just such a holistic approach to veterans’ care.

We should celebrate the fact that 16 bodies have come together to work so effectively to support Scotland’s veterans. The project has proved to be a resounding success so far. I will not name all 16 of the organisations, as Maurice Corry did, but I want to congratulate some of them. Poppyscotland is the lead agency. There is also Age Scotland, the Legion, Erskine, Scottish War Blinded, the University of the West of Scotland and many more besides. What they have done has been innovative and so important to the lived experience of our veterans.

As things stand, the consortium is funded until the end of June 2020, which is not too far away. After that, the future of the consortium is unclear, so the question is: what next? Where can the consortium go from here? Can it improve further and can its scope be expanded to provide support to a wider range of veterans? It would be a mistake to lose the valuable services that are provided. The consortium has been such a positive example of supporting veterans through collaboration, so it would be a travesty if it did not continue. There is a strong case to be made that the funding should not only continue but be increased to build on its success. At the very least, continuing to fund the consortium would provide a resounding statement of support for that kind of collaborative approach.

It is vital that the consortium continues to have a positive impact on veterans’ lives. The veterans commissioner, the Government and the third sector all agree that collaboration and co-operation are critical aspects of improving support for veterans. I hope that the minister will not only welcome what the unforgotten forces consortium has done so far but draw together a group of key people to drive forward access to funding so that the consortium’s work can continue for many years to come.

19:26  

The Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans (Graeme Dey)

I congratulate Maurice Corry on bringing forward the motion for debate and other members on their input to the debate. As ever with deliberations on our armed forces and veterans community, the tone and approach have reflected the cross-party consensus that exists in the chamber. We share a common purpose in wanting the best for those who have served their country and their families.

Veterans are a great asset to our communities, and it is important to recognise that the vast or overwhelming majority of people who leave the military go on to lead highly productive lives. However, as we know, a number of them struggle immediately post service and, for others, issues emerge several years down the line. Then there are our older veterans who experience age-related issues. Collectively—by which I mean local and national government, working in partnership with our effective and highly regarded third sector—we owe them the best support that we can provide.

In Scotland, we have an extremely committed and close-knit set of veterans charities. I am constantly impressed by the work that they do day to day to make a difference to the lives of our veterans and their families. The unforgotten forces consortium, which encompasses military and non-military charities, is a great example of that, particularly with regard to our more aged veterans. One of the most striking things that I have found in engaging with charities in the area is the duty of care that they feel for those who approach them for assistance. If a charity cannot provide the help that is being sought, it does not just point the veteran in another direction. I have seen countless examples of charities personally guiding people and taking them through what can be a frustrating process to ensure that they source the help that they require.

The Minister for Older People and Equalities and I have had the pleasure of meeting the unforgotten forces consortium to learn about its work. I first met the consortium in January in Ayrshire and then again when addressing its annual conference in Stirling in April. In both cases, it was great to hear about the good work that the consortium had been undertaking and to discuss how the Scottish Government can support the veterans sector.

We know that, overall, the population in Scotland is ageing and that those who need help present with far more complex needs, and our veterans community is not exempt from that. By bringing together a group of charities, some of which are represented in the public gallery, the unforgotten forces consortium can provide seamless support for our veterans across a range of needs while making greater use of available funds through, for example, improved signposting, better cross-referrals between organisations and reduced duplication. In particular, the consortium’s emphasis on ensuring that those who are seeking help need to tell their story only once has been welcomed by veterans, who want as hassle free a pathway to support as possible.

The consortium’s efforts in supporting our veterans community very much parallel what we in the Scottish Government are doing more widely across the consortium’s three themes of physical wellbeing, sensory impairment and social isolation and loneliness.

For example, in our efforts to support older people’s physical wellbeing, over the past few years the Scottish Government has provided the Care Inspectorate with nearly £1.7 million to expand its successful care about physical activity programme so that it will reach more areas of Scotland. The programme provides practical support and encouragement to care staff in building physical activity into the daily activities and routines of people in their care. I know that older veterans who have participated in the programme have benefited from it and that ex-servicemen are also helping to bring their knowledge and expertise by leading activities in care settings.

To support veterans who find their eyesight failing in their later years, we have been working with partners to update the guidance on the certificate of visual impairment. In the coming months it will include a question on whether an individual has served in the forces, including as a reservist. If they have, the guidance will signpost the patient to information about Scottish War Blinded, which is able to offer services and lifetime support irrespective of whether the condition is directly attributable to the individual’s time in the services.

Another key part of our work across Government is driving progress to combat social isolation and loneliness throughout Scotland. In December 2018, we published our strategy on social isolation. We recognise that that can be an issue for some veterans, especially as they come from a community that, historically, has emphasised self-help. That is why the Scottish Government, through the Scottish veterans fund, has also funded organisations—of which the unforgotten forces consortium’s partnership fares 4 free is an example—to help our elderly veterans to have an active social life long into their old age.

As for future funding, my ministerial colleagues and I are still discussing how we can support the veterans sector beyond 2020. Like Mr Corry, I note the calls that have been made for the UK and Scottish Governments to work with the consortium to review future funding options in order that it can continue its innovative and successful work beyond its current funding term.

Let me finish as I began, on a note of consensus. As I indicated a moment ago, the Scottish ministers are presently considering how we might support the veterans sector in the years ahead. I know that the consortium is actively looking at a range of ways in which it might make its model sustainable. However, Mr Corry’s motion is right to note calls for input from the UK Government, too. It supported the establishment of the model through London interbank offered rate—LIBOR—funding, which, as we have heard, is coming to an end next year. Following its initial commitment to begin the work, there is clearly a question about the support that might be available from Westminster post-LIBOR. For its part, the Scottish Government will be happy to work with the consortium to review funding options to ensure that it will have a sustainable future, because it has certainly proven its worth.

Meeting closed at 19:32.