Scottish Parliament, 19 June 2019

464 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

Mental Health (Young People Entering and in Custody)

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Before we start business, I should tell members that the clocks are running at real time, which has to happen because we are in the middle of stage 3 proceedings. Do not ask me about it; I do not understand it. It means that I will be relying on members to look at the clock to see the time for the purposes of the statement, questions and so on. I also have the time running next to me, to make sure that members do not overrun too much, especially when we get to portfolio question time. Telling you that took only 18 seconds, which is not too bad.

The first item of business is a statement by Humza Yousaf on the Scottish Government’s response to the “Report on an expert review of the provision of mental health services, for young people entering and in custody at HMP YOI Polmont”. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Last November, I asked Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons for Scotland to carry out an expert review of the mental health support for young people in custody following the tragic deaths by suicide of Katie Allan and William Lindsay Brown at Polmont last year.

I take this opportunity to once again offer my and the Government’s sincerest condolences to their families and to all those who have lost loved ones to suicide. Every death of a young person is undoubtedly a tragedy for them, their families and their friends, and also more widely for Scottish society, which has lost the opportunity of their talent and potential contribution.

The purpose of the review was to consider the arrangements for young people with mental health and wellbeing needs who are entering and are in custody. A fatal accident inquiry is mandatory whenever someone has died in legal custody, and in the cases of Katie Allan and William Lindsay Brown, the Crown Office is undertaking independent investigations in advance of mandatory fatal accident inquiries. It was therefore not the purpose of the review to investigate the specific circumstances surrounding either of those deaths.

The inspectorate of prosecution in Scotland is currently undertaking a follow-up review of the thematic report on FAIs that was published in August 2016. At the Lord Advocate’s request, the follow-up review will consider the scope of the death investigation process when a young person dies in custody and the merits of prioritising it. The follow-up report is due to be submitted to the Lord Advocate this summer.

Separately, the Scottish Prison Service is considering what more can be done to improve the transparency of information about apparent suicides in Scotland’s prisons, pending formal determination by an FAI. Clearly, however, our priority must be to aim to prevent, as far as possible, the circumstances that can give rise to the risk of suicide in prison.

I am very grateful to Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons and to Dr Helen Smith, who worked with her to oversee the review, for the comprehensive and robust work that they have carried out.

Both the mental health review and routine inspection report for Polmont recognise the good work at Polmont and highlight the hard work, compassion and dedication of front-line prison and healthcare staff. I am very grateful to the management and staff at Polmont for the open and constructive way in which they have engaged with the review and informed its recommendations.

The review by the chief inspector and Dr Smith is comprehensive and wide ranging, and it makes some important and challenging findings. It highlights the heightened vulnerability of young people who are on remand and those who are in the early days of custody, the damaging impact of social isolation, the vital importance of good information sharing between agencies, and many more issues.

I put on record my appreciation for the staff at Polmont, the overwhelming majority of whom I know care very much about the young people with whom they work. Although there are positives in both the inspection report and the expert review, I intend to focus my remarks and the substance of my statement on the areas of challenge and improvement, as members would expect.

An action group, which includes relevant officials from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service and the national health service, has been convened to oversee progress on the numerous review recommendations. Some of the recommendations will be taken forward under existing Scottish Government strategies.

When I met the parents of Katie Allan in November last year, I stated my commitment to respond to the concerns that have been raised by the tragic deaths of both Katie and William. On Monday, I wrote to both families to offer to meet them. I very much hope to have the opportunity to discuss the findings of the review with them and I will value their input as we take forward our response. It is clear from the review that the necessary actions extend beyond Polmont.

I turn to the substantial recommendations of the expert review. Nobody who is going through the justice system should be harmed by the failure of agencies to fully share information with one another, where data protection legislation allows it. The health and justice collaboration improvement board, which draws together senior leaders from health and social care, justice and local government, is exploring how public bodies can ensure that decisions are as fully informed as possible. That board is mapping the flows of information in the health and justice systems.

Ministers will work with partner agencies to build on that and consider and take forward actions in response to the recommendations, including immediate action that we can take to improve information sharing between the different agencies that support the care of young people who enter and who are in Polmont. The SPS has confirmed that it will develop a new health and wellbeing strategy, which will include a bespoke mental health strategy for young people.

The review found that the SPS talk to me suicide prevention strategy is “robust”, and that it is generally followed well at Polmont. That strategy—which is relevant when the risk of suicide is deemed to be immediate—is overseen by the national suicide prevention risk management group, which includes representatives from expert partners, including the Samaritans, Breathing Space and Families Outside. The review makes a number of recommendations that are relevant to the talk to me strategy. The Scottish Prison Service will work with the group to consider them, and to ensure that its approach to suicide prevention for young people, including its approach for people who are coming off of the talk to me strategy, is effective. The national group is also developing a self-harm policy and will oversee work to consider lessons from the use of safer spaces in different settings, including secure care, which might allow safer environments to be more supportive and less sterile. Work to address the recommendations that relate to staffing, training and support for staff at Polmont is well under way.

On mental health staffing in prisons, through action 15 in our mental health strategy we have committed to increase access to the overall mental health workforce with 800 additional staff, which will be supported by investment that will rise to £35 million by 2021-22. This month, the Minister for Mental Health wrote to all chief officers of integration joint boards and chief executives of NHS boards to highlight the importance of recruiting additional mental health workers in prisons under that commitment, and to ask them for details of how they will plan recruitment for this financial year.

The review report highlights that those who are young and in the early stages of custody are especially vulnerable to suicide. Everyone who enters prison is assessed for their risk of suicide. Inspectors were impressed by many aspects of the interactive induction at Polmont, highlighting the compassion of the staff who undertake admission and the role of peer mentors. However, we know that the time that people spend on remand is currently largely unproductive. The review report underlines how damaging periods that are spent on remand can potentially be for individuals. The number of young people who are aged under 21 who are held on remand in Scotland has fallen by a quarter over the past five years. Nonetheless, we will continue to ensure that alternatives to remand are available for young people, and to support those young people who are held on remand.

The issue of body searches being part of the regime within prisons was highlighted by the family of Katie Allan in particular. I can confirm today that, as a priority, the SPS will stop the routine body searching of under-18s who are in custody. The Scottish Prison Service will evaluate the impact of those changes after one year. In line with the development of the new female custodial estate, the SPS will adopt a more trauma-informed approach to its searching process for women.

Supporting positive family contact throughout someone’s time in prison has wide-ranging benefits for that individual and their family. It reduces the risk of reoffending and supports positive relationships, which contribute to good mental health and mitigate vulnerability. With a view to supporting that, I can confirm that I have asked the Scottish Prison Service to explore the options for implementing a pilot of in-cell phones across HM YOI Polmont, with necessary controls in place, of course.

At present, prisoners in Scotland can access telephones in communal areas at certain times only. In-cell phones have the potential to contribute to prisoners’ wellbeing by making family contact significantly easier. They also have the benefit of improving access to national helpline services. In addition, technology can offer the potential to develop telehealth services and support for wellbeing in prisons. We will explore the options available as we take forward a pilot, but we will ensure that the Prison Service retains control over the phone numbers that prisoners can access and the ability to monitor calls.

As for monitoring our progress, we remain committed to improving outcomes for young people in the community and in custody. Along with relevant ministerial colleagues, I will hold a round table with key partner agencies before the end of the year to review our progress.

It should not take tragedies such as the deaths of Katie Allan and William Lindsay for services to improve. I am deeply saddened by what happened to those two young people and by any life that is lost in our care. We know that young people who commit offences and become involved in the criminal justice system are often also the young people who have experienced multiple traumas and those who are the most vulnerable. It is our duty to do everything possible to help them rehabilitate where necessary and, vitally, to keep them safe from harm during the time when they are in our care.

The expert review report is substantial, and we will work on the many recommendations contained therein. Our ultimate aim is to oversee the continued fall in the number of young people entering our criminal justice system. It is important that, as a progressive society, we have transparency, a trauma-informed approach and, above all, a compassionate justice system that understands the often complex reasons why people end up in prison and that believes in their ability to rehabilitate.

I will endeavour to keep Parliament updated on our response to the expert review.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We have about 20 minutes for the cabinet secretary to take questions on his statement. There is no time in hand this afternoon, so I am relying on members to be disciplined. We will see how it goes.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

I, too, offer my sincere condolences to the families and friends affected by the tragic deaths of

Katie Allan and William Lindsay last year. I thank Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons and Dr Helen Smith for their work in forming the review, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for advance sight of his statement.

Prevention is, of course, key. The SPS has said that it will develop a new mental health strategy for young people. When can we expect to see the strategy? When will the cabinet secretary report back to the Parliament on the steps taken to improve communication across the justice system and to ensure that the risks and vulnerabilities of young inmates are given careful consideration, particularly in the initial three months of custody? Those issues are of specific concern in the report on the review.

The cabinet secretary has highlighted the desperate need to recruit more mental health workers in prisons—I am pleased that that has been included. However, on the basis that, as at the end of April this year, just six additional whole-time equivalent staff had been recruited, what exact steps will be taken to vastly improve that trajectory?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Annie Wells for her questions and for the constructive manner in which she asked them.

As regards the timeline, the Scottish Prison Service is rightly taking a really informed approach and is talking to partners—some of which I mentioned in my statement—to develop that bespoke mental health strategy for young people. I will ask the chief executive of the Prison Service to write to Annie Wells directly to give her more detail about the steps that the service is taking to develop the strategy and about some of the associated timelines.

I could not agree more with what has been said about remand, and I hope that I highlighted that in my statement. To be very honest and frank, and I am sure that Annie Wells will understand this, who goes to remand—or not—is not entirely in my gift. The judiciary is rightly independent—we all accept the independence of the judiciary and we guard that independence fiercely.

What I can do—to a large extent, this is in the Government’s gift—is work with partners both to create robust community alternatives and to work on alternatives to remand as set out in the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill, such as bail supervision and electronic monitoring. The Government will continue to do that.

As for what action is being taken, I mentioned in my statement that the Minister for Mental Health, who is in the chamber, has written to health boards to ask them what they will do in this financial year. We are not waiting around for future years; the minister has asked what is being done this financial year to help recruit more mental health workers for our prisons, and I am sure that she will be happy to furnish Annie Wells with further details, should she require them.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The recent tragic deaths of Katie Allan and William Lindsay Brown highlight deeper problems relating to deaths and suicides in custody, and I associate myself with the remarks of the cabinet secretary and Annie Wells.

We agree that all steps to protect the welfare, including the associated physical health issues, of those who are in custody must be taken. Will the cabinet secretary accept all seven recommendations in the report? I am sure that he agrees that we cannot afford to make the same mistakes again.

How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the talk to me strategy is not simply a tick-box exercise? When will training commence for prison staff who have asked for and need specific training on mental health disorders and on dealing with the welfare of young people? Katie Allan’s family highlighted that many people in custody have mental health problems simply because they are in custody, so it is important to train our staff to be able to deal with such problems.

The case of William Lindsay Brown highlighted the fact that there was a reduction in the number of secure care places in 2016-17, from 90 to 84, which meant that the courts were not able to make the disposals that might have been needed in certain cases. When will the cabinet secretary act to ensure that, when appropriate, young people are placed in secure care, not the prison estate? When will such places become more widely available?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Pauline McNeill for her questions and remarks.

I reassure Pauline McNeill that the talk to me strategy is about the immediate potential vulnerability of an individual at a particular moment in time. Today, I have confirmed—I reiterated this point in my response to Annie Wells—that the Scottish Prison Service will work on the development of a bespoke mental health strategy for young people. I am sure that, if Pauline McNeill would find it helpful, the chief executive of the SPS would be happy to talk her through how the service will develop the strategy through an iterative process.

I also reassure Pauline McNeill that, as I said in my statement, training is well under way. Again, I can facilitate contact with the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service if she wants, and I am sure that Colin McConnell would be happy to meet her to give details on how the training is developing and on how the SPS is rolling it out to staff across the prison estate.

Although we are focusing, rightly and understandably, on young people—particularly in the light of the terrible tragedies that have been mentioned—mental health issues also affect the adult population in our prisons. Although I have talked about a bespoke mental health strategy for young people, there will be a mental health strategy for people right across the prison estate.

The Deputy First Minister, who is beside me, and I work closely on wider issues relating to secure care. Action has been taken since the terrible tragedy of the death of William Lindsay Brown. As of today, secure beds in secure units are available. As I have said to Pauline McNeill previously—I know that she understands this—there is a lot of nuance and complexity to the issue. There has been a reduction in admissions from Scotland, and secure units need to have a very high level of occupancy in order for the provision of such services to continue. Therefore, a number of cross-border referrals come in. There are options for the Scottish Government to consider, such as purchasing space, but the issue is complex. I give an assurance that we are working through such complexities, and I can provide Pauline McNeill with more detail on that matter in writing. However, I reassure her that, as things stand, secure beds in our secure estate are available.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I appreciate that the matter is very sensitive, but I point out that the first two questions have taken seven minutes. Twelve members want to ask questions, so I ask for succinct questions and answers. I ask members not to miss the point, but to hone it down. I have no doubt that Mr Finnie will set an example.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

No pressure, Presiding Officer.

I add my condolences and thanks to those of other members. The cabinet secretary talks about a compassionate justice system, and his statement acknowledges that remand is largely unproductive. We talk about ensuring that alternatives are available, and safer spaces and different settings have been mentioned. I ask for some creative thinking to be done, so that safer spaces do not necessarily always mean confinement.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I could not agree more with John Finnie, who makes his point well. I said in my statement that safer space does not mean a sterile space. That is the thinking that is going on in the Scottish Prison Service. If the member would like to speak to the SPS, it will be able to give him some assurances. He is absolutely right to raise that point.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The tragic deaths of Katie Allan and William Lindsay mean that we must learn lessons. I, too, thank the chief inspector and Dr Smith for a thorough report.

Much that is in the cabinet secretary’s statement is welcome, including the pilot of in-cell phones. More than two years ago, the Scottish Government promised that prisons would share in the roll-out of 800 new mental health workers. At the end of that process, how many of the 800 will be based in prisons?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I mentioned in my statement, and in response to Annie Wells, that the Minister for Mental Health has written to ask health boards about their plans for this financial year. I will ask her to write to Liam McArthur with the detail of the responses that she receives.

Priority is being given to the matter because we understand the need in our prisons—in particular, among our young people in the custodial estate.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, the report’s highlighting of

“the compassion and dedication of front-line prison and healthcare staff.”

I understand that the Scottish Prison Service and its NHS partners have in recent months undertaken a range of actions to improve health and wellbeing support in Polmont. Will the cabinet secretary outline what work is under way?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Quite a lot of work is under way. I am sure that the Scottish Prison Service can furnish Rona Mackay with details.

However, for example, refresher training on the SPS’s suicide prevention strategy—which is called “Talk to me”—has been delivered to 95 per cent of staff in Polmont. Intensive training in mental health first aid for young people for staff who work in the residential parts of Polmont has also commenced. An additional senior manager was appointed in December 2018 with specific responsibilities for overseeing implementation of the suicide prevention strategy and suicide awareness.

NHS Forth Valley, which is the local health board, has worked closely with Polmont in terms of resources for senior staff who have been appointed to strengthen leadership and support. I do not have time to go into the many other things that have happened, but, if Rona Mackay gets in touch with the SPS, it can give her a lot more detail.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will go back to the cabinet secretary’s remarks on remand. The report notes that young people who are on remand feel that they “struggled to access services”. What will the cabinet secretary do to ensure that young people who are on remand have appropriate access to activities and services?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will continue to try to reduce use of remand. That will be our focus.

Liam Kerr is right to ask what we will do for people who are on remand. We will continue to provide funding and we will work with the Scottish Prison Service and third sector providers on services for the young people who are in our care.

It is important to focus on reducing use of remand. Liam Kerr and I have had many discussions about that, and we agree that the proportion of Scotland’s prison population who are on remand is far too high—it is almost double the figure in the nearby jurisdictions of England and Wales. The focus will be on alternatives to remand, including community justice measures, bail supervision and electronic monitoring. I appreciate that all those alternatives must have appropriate safeguards, but the focus must be on reducing the number of people who are on remand. The review has focused on the intense support that is needed in a young person’s first few days on remand and in custody thereafter.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

As the cabinet secretary said, it is clear from the review that the necessary actions must extend beyond Polmont. How will progress on implementing the recommendations be monitored at Polmont and elsewhere?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I hope that the presence of my ministerial colleagues who are sitting to my right and my left demonstrates the cross-portfolio and cross-Government importance that we attach to the agenda. I reiterate, as I said in my statement, that an action group that will include relevant officials from across the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service and the NHS has been convened to oversee progress on the review’s recommendations. We remain absolutely committed to improving outcomes for young people who are in custody. Alongside my ministerial colleagues, I will hold a round-table meeting with key partner agencies before the end of the year to review our progress.

I mentioned that I hope to meet the families of Katie Allan and William Lindsay—I think that I will meet Katie Allan’s family next week. I would like those families, and others who have been similarly affected, to help us to shape the response. It is hugely important that we listen to their concerns and to people’s lived experience of Polmont, custody and the justice system more broadly, and that people’s views are fed into how we shape the response.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am interested in why the inspection report did not look into the culture of bullying that had been highlighted in previous inspections dating back as far as 2003.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that Katie Allan’s death certificate records her cause of death as hanging, but the SPS website has registered the cause of her death as being “Not Determined—Awaiting FAI”. If the incident had happened in England or Wales, under the Ministry of Justice, it might have been recorded as being a suspected suicide that was awaiting an FAI. That does not feel quite right to me. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need greater transparency? How might we achieve that?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

On Monica Lennon’s first point, she is within her rights to write to the inspector—who is, of course, independent—to ask any questions on the inspection report or the expert review. The inspection report on Polmont is very thorough and says a lot about the workforce. I paraphrase slightly, but I do not think that I am too far off the mark in saying that it describes the workforce as compassionate and committed. I do not doubt that the vast majority of Polmont staff are just that. The inspector carried out close scrutiny of the workforce. If Monica Lennon has questions about the inspection, she would be right to go to the independent inspector and ask them.

I agree with Monica Lennon that we need greater transparency. I said in my statement that transparency is hugely important. I understand the dilemma that the Scottish Prison Service has when a fatal accident inquiry is involved. I know that the SPS feels that it has to be extremely careful about what it says publicly and about what is put in the public domain before the determination is made in an FAI. Notwithstanding that, there are examples—Monica Lennon cited England and Wales—of things that we could do to improve communication, transparency and openness, which are so important for public confidence. That issue is being explored and taken forward as we speak.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Emma Harper will be followed by Margaret Mitchell. I am afraid that Margaret Mitchell’s question might have to be the last one, because of the length of the answers. I appreciate why the answers have been longer, given the circumstances, and I hope that members understand, too.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary mentioned access to in-cell phones for young people. I look forward to following that up. What additional support is available for the families of young people in Polmont, particularly those who are being held on remand?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We will continue to invest in the prison estate. At the moment, investment is focused on the women’s custodial estate. For example, the new community custody units are designed to help with family support.

The pilot of in-cell phones at Polmont is exciting, and is potentially hugely important for family relations and connections. The prison visitor centres that we help to fund are also really important. They sometimes get negative publicity from elements in the media, which is unfair, but the centres are hugely important in respect of family contact. Family contact and family relationships are hugely important for our young people. Where the Prison Service has not got that right at Polmont, there are plenty of recommendations for us to take forward. That is why we are piloting the in-cell phones in Polmont first, rather than in other parts of the prison estate.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

During the Justice Committee’s short inquiry into secure care places and mental health provision in Scotland, the committee heard that the transition between a secure care place and Polmont can be vital. Some young vulnerable people benefit

from close personal relationships that are formed in the secure care place, only for those relationships to be broken when the young person is 18 and has to transfer to Polmont. Will the cabinet secretary undertake to look at the transition rules to ensure that they are not so inflexible that they undo months of good work that vulnerable young people have already undertaken in secure care?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Yes. I will be happy to explore issues to do with transition, with my colleague the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. Margaret Mitchell has raised an important issue.

A related point, on which the review shone a light, is the disappointing nature of information sharing between agencies and services. We are all aware that there are issues to do with information sharing, and the health and justice collaboration improvement board is looking at the matter. The information that flows between the courts, social work, secure care units and the prison estate is vital, so there should be no gaps in that regard.

I assure Margaret Mitchell that we will reflect on what she said about transition. In addition, the key recommendation on information sharing is being taken forward and we will monitor the situation, through the action group.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions. I apologise to Ruth Maguire, Mary Fee, Fulton MacGregor and Daniel Johnson for being unable to call them, due to time pressures this afternoon.

Trade Unions (Skills Training and Lifelong Learning)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

1. I remind members that I am a member of the Musicians’ Union and a co-chair of the collective learning partnership group in the Parliament.

To ask the Scottish Government how it supports trade unions to deliver skills training and lifelong learning. (S5O-03405)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Trade unions play a key role in supporting the learning needs of workers. That is why, in 2019-20, we are maintaining funding of £2.262 million to Scottish union learning to support workforce development and £100,000 for its programme on fair work: leadership and equalities. Scottish union learning is also using £85,000, which is being provided over 2017 to 2019 from Scotland’s allocation of the national cyber security programme fund, to build the cyber-resilience capacity of unions.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank the Scottish Government for its continued commitment to Scottish union learning.

Given that the quickening pace of change in the world of work—

which is being driven by increasing automation and greater adoption of artificial intelligence technologies—could mean that the people who enter the labour market today might be employed in a range of different jobs over their working lives, does the minister agree that trade unions can play a valuable role in ensuring that Scotland’s workforce is supported in skills development through what some people have characterised as the fourth industrial revolution?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On the member’s final point, there has to be an increased focus on what must be a major area of our activity on skills more widely. We need to ensure that we are well placed to respond to the challenges and opportunities that automation presents. We will shortly publish our future skills action plan, and the work that we are doing on the national retraining partnership will feed into that.

I chair the strategic labour market group, which recently discussed the fact that where we have more cohesive labour markets and good industrial relations, the workforce is less fearful of the impact of automation. Trade unions are hugely important to the agenda, and the Scottish union learning initiative is important, too.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

There are members in the chamber who were not here when I said that, although the clocks are running at real time, I have a clock that tells me exactly how long people are taking. I again ask for succinct questions and answers—it is something to do with the continuing stage 3 debate, but do not ask me what: I do not understand it, and really I think that it is ridiculous, but there we go.

Eco Schools (Stirling Council)

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how many eco schools there are in the Stirling Council area. (S5O-03406)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There are currently 27 eco schools in the Stirling Council area.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is the younger generations that will suffer most from the effects of climate change, particularly if we allow our planet to continue to be harmed in the way that it has been harmed? Will he say what more schools can do to educate young people about the importance of protecting our delicately balanced natural environment?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The nature of curriculum for excellence is that it relies heavily on the concept of interdisciplinary learning. Through the broad general education, an understanding of climate change encompasses an understanding of science, life in the outdoors, the use of resources and the science behind all the questions about the use of resources. There are broad opportunities in that regard.

This morning, I launched “Learning for sustainability: Vision 2030+ action plan”, which reinforces many of those concepts. I am delighted by the cross-sectoral endorsement that we have had of that work, which provides schools with a great opportunity to take forward the vital work that the many eco schools in Scotland are doing, which creates a clear aspiration among young people in our society for the urgent action to tackle climate change that this Government is determined to take.

New School (Butterstone)

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update regarding the status of the New School Butterstone. (S5O-03407)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The proprietor of the New School Butterstone, which provided education and care for 24 learners, closed the school on 23 November 2018. The priority of the local authorities was then to ensure that a long-term solution was in place for every young person. Every family was offered support and education by their local authority, including alternative places or interim provision.

Moore House, which operated another independent school, has successfully registered an independent day school on the site of the former New School Butterstone. As a result, Butterstone House School was registered on 9 May 2019, and opened its doors to 13 students for secondary school provision on 13 May. Eleven of those pupils previously attended the New School Butterstone.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that many families are still looking for answers, particularly on why, in some cases, the children did not receive education for over six months. Will the Government commit to supporting an independent inquiry into the actions of Perth and Kinross Council, the Care Inspectorate and Education Scotland in inspecting, reporting and advising on the closure of the New School Butterstone?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am now giving consideration to that issue. I indicated to families that my priority was to ensure that young people had continuity of education. As I said in my earlier answer, every effort was made to do that. However, I acknowledge that that has been difficult for a number of the young people involved, because of the very specific nature of the education that they received at the New School Butterstone.

I highlight to Mr Ruskell and the chamber that the priority has always been to make sure that young people are educated in a safe and appropriate educational environment. The inspectorates have particular statutory functions to exercise in that respect, and at no stage did Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education or the Care Commission require the closure of the New School Butterstone. I am happy to put that point on the parliamentary record.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary has been very helpful—if I may say so—over the New School Butterstone issue. It has, as he knows, raised questions about the availability of places in special schools, and particularly about whether all the available places are being taken up. Is the Scottish Government having discussions with local authorities to ensure that there is an awareness of how many places are available at any one time, and of whether they are being taken up?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There are a number of points in that very legitimate question. Liz Smith will appreciate that it is a fine judgement as to the appropriateness of mainstream educational provision for all young people, and, where that does not address the needs of young people, as to the specific characteristics of education that should be available to them. A range of special educational provision is available in Scotland. We have to be satisfied, and local authorities have to satisfy themselves by statute, that they are best meeting the needs of every individual child by the decisions that they take, in consultation with families.

As Liz Smith will know, we are looking at the whole area of the deployment of the mainstreaming principle, and all the issues that she raises are legitimate issues to consider as part of that process. I will keep Parliament updated about the course of the discussions with local authorities.

Net Zero Target (Skills Strategy)

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment the Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills has made of an initial and transferable skills strategy for meeting the net zero greenhouse gas emissions target. (S5O-03408)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

We established the just transition commission, which has expertise in the labour market and skills, to advise ministers on the move to a net zero economy. The commission’s work plan has identified skills as a key topic. Analysis of current and future labour requirements, including skills, will form an on-going part of its considerations.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

The minister will be aware of Scottish Labour’s position that such a strategy should be on a statutory footing. I highlight that it is often the North Sea industries that are looked at in relation to a just transition. I will give two other examples: there is the opportunity in textiles to embed recycled materials into fashion and furnishing, and in farming to embed agroforestry in the future. Can the minister update me—in writing, if that is more appropriate—on how assessments are being coordinated and the results maximised and shared in this climate and environment emergency?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am happy to commit to writing to Claudia Beamish with more detail. I agree with the thrust of her question. We must ensure that, as we transition to a net zero carbon economy, we think about not only the energy sector but all sectors. In that regard, it is important that we are geared up to ensure that our entire population is flexible and is able to upskill and reskill.

Multilevel Teaching

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether multilevel teaching is the most effective way for pupils to learn. (S5O-03409)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Multilevel teaching has long been part of Scottish education, and teachers are well skilled to take account of the different needs of their pupils. We want to ensure that teachers are empowered to decide what is right in their individual settings. There will be varying levels of prior attainment in any class and we have yet to see any firm evidence of educational disadvantage due to multilevel teaching.

I am aware that the issue of multilevel teaching has come up in the Education and Skills Committee’s inquiry into subject choice. I will, of course, consider the committee’s conclusions on the range of issues that it has been exploring when it reports in due course.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

At least 26 schools in the north-east are running combined classes in which three or more qualifications are taught, including two out of the 11 schools in Scotland that are running classes in which four or more qualifications are taught. Further, in September, at the start of the school year, north-east schools were 140 teachers short.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to giving the north-east a fair deal and north-east kids the best possible education?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am certainly devoted to ensuring that children in the north-east of Scotland and the whole of the rest of Scotland get a first-class education. Mr Chapman will know that there are some specific challenges

in recruiting teachers in the north-east. Similar challenges face other public services, for all of the reasons that he will be familiar with.

I am pleased to say that we have a rising number of teachers in Scotland, with teacher numbers at their highest level since 2010. I am determined to ensure that we have in place the necessary resources and approaches. That is why I have made investment to support the delivery of the e-school venture, which is designed to deliver flexible approaches to learning in order to meet the needs of young people in circumstances in which staff are not available. I am glad to see that a number of mainland local authorities are using the e-Sgoil model, which is a great development by Western Isles Council and is actively supported by the Scottish Government.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Teachers who gave evidence to the Education and Skills Committee noted that multilevel teaching is becoming commonplace. Every school that was represented in the evidence sessions had instances of it, and some teachers commented that teaching successfully in such circumstances is almost impossible.

If the cabinet secretary is right that multilevel teaching poses no disadvantage, those teachers must be wrong. Why are they?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let us look at all the evidence that the Education and Skills Committee has taken. It has taken evidence from individuals such as Dr Alan Britton, from the University of Glasgow, who told the committee on 24 April that, when he was teaching in Scottish secondary schools in the 1990s, he was involved in multilevel teaching. The approach has been a feature of Scottish education for some time.

I look to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education to consider the quality and effectiveness of teaching. I do not see identified in inspection reports particular problems or challenges that come with multilevel teaching. Obviously, we will continue to consider inspection evidence on the question, but we have to acknowledge that the approach has been a characteristic of Scottish education for many years, and I do not think that the evidence has been marshalled to show that it is disadvantaging pupils, particularly as attainment is rising in Scottish schools.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I want to get the last three questions in, so I ask for short supplementaries.

Reading Opportunities (Under-fives)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it seeks to support reading opportunities for under-fives across the Maryhill and Springburn constituency. (S5O-03410)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Under-fives across Scotland will benefit from our transformational investment in early learning and childcare. Children in Maryhill and Springburn are already benefiting from early phasing of the expanded offer. In addition, there are 11 equity and excellence leads currently working in the constituency. Those additional graduate professionals provide support to children in our most disadvantaged communities, including support with literacy.

The bookbug programme delivers free sessions across Scotland, including in Springburn library, and we have invested £7 million in the play, talk, read campaign on the importance of playing, talking and reading with children in the early years.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I thank the minister for that answer. The Scottish Government has a partnership with the Imagination Library; so does Blochairn Housing Association in my constituency. It provides free reading books to all under-five children every single month, direct to all resident children in the Blochairn Housing Association area. It is a fantastic scheme. Will the minister meet Blochairn Housing Association, the Imagination Library and me to hear how that successful partnership with Blochairn Housing Association has benefited young people—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister has got the message, Mr Doris.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

But finally—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No—no “finally”. Do not try that on.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

No, she got half the message—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Sit down, please.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Yes, I am aware of Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library. On a personal basis, I am a huge fan of her music but her passion for reading and the work that she has done to improve literacy have been incredible and worldwide. The initiative was launched in Scotland in 2011 and, to date, the Scottish Government has provided funding for the programme to operate nationally. In the last year, 33,451 books have been provided to 2,309 looked-after and adopted children aged nought to five in Scotland. If it would be helpful, I am happy to meet the member to discuss that further.

Medical School Places (Scottish Universities)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to ensure that Scottish students can access medical school places at Scottish universities. (S5O-03411)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government is taking a number of measures to ensure that Scottish students from all sectors of society can access medical places. We are, for instance, funding 50 ring-fenced widening access places, focused on applicants from the 20 per cent most-deprived council wards. As of 2019, we are also increasing numbers from 40 to 50 on our targeted pre-medical entry courses, which are focused on socially disadvantaged as well as remote and rural applicants.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I recently raised the case of a young person who was offered a place as an international, fee-paying student but when his residency led to him being reclassified as a home student, the offer was withdrawn. Does the minister agree that that is unacceptable and discriminates against my constituent?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As autonomous institutions, universities and colleges have responsibility for managing their affairs, which includes decisions made on the fee status of individual students. Institutions assess students based on the criteria that are laid out in regulations and on evidence that students provide. As a result, on rare occasions, those decisions vary from institution to institution. In the case that Lewis Macdonald cited, the institution concerned took a decision on who is a home-based or fee-paying student. I take it that he has raised the issue with the institution. If he feels that there is anything that I should do to investigate it, he should send me the details, and I will do that.

University Applications (People with Leave to Remain)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what the criteria are for people applying to university who have leave to remain when assessing their home or overseas status. (S5O-03412)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As autonomous bodies, it is for universities to determine the tuition-fee status of students who apply for higher education courses, in accordance with the Education (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Eligibility for home-rate fees is determined with reference to an applicant’s residence rather than their nationality or place of birth.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

In my constituency, there is a family who came to this country in 2002; all its members have leave to remain. Two of the children currently attend university and receive home fees. However, when the daughter applied for higher education, certain universities and colleges classed her as an overseas student, which meant that she would have to pay fees. Does the minister agree that the criteria should be applied equally over all Scotland’s higher education institutions?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

That question is similar to the previous question. I reiterate that residency rules, which are laid out in legislation, set out eligibility for tuition fees and living costs loan support. As I also said before, we are speaking about autonomous institutions. On rare occasions, decisions vary from institution to institution. I make a similar offer and ask Maureen Watt to send me more details of the case. If there is a case for my intervention, in order to have more consistency across the institutions, I will look at it carefully.

Planning (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 (Day 2)

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is the continuation of 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 correction slip for amendment 3 and the groupings of amendments. As this is the second day, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division of the afternoon. That first division will last for 30 seconds, but thereafter the first division after every debate will last one minute and all other votes will last for 30 seconds.

Yesterday, I tried to give members an indication of which were the long groups. I had been asked by a member to do that, but I got it spectacularly wrong, so I am not going to do it today. However, I will indicate that we are likely to take a break following group 25, which might be at around half past 4, and we might take another break following group 32. We will play that by ear and I will try to indicate to members in advance of when it is about to happen.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list. We will resume consideration of section 10, picking up at group 16, which is on land value capture/sharing. Amendment 112, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 212 and 215.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It feels as though I have never been away.

Amendment 112 removes land value capture from the bill. It was introduced by an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. Initially, the bill had no mechanism for capturing any land value uplift. It was a subject that the Local Government and Communities had a close look at and I think that there is general cross-party support for the concept.

However, my stage 2 amendment has raised legal concerns. I have to be honest about that and say that I do not think that there is a place for it in the bill, because there are problems with it. Organisations such as the Scottish Property Federation have called it “premature” and welcomed amendment 112, which removes the provision. Scottish Land & Estates pointed out its possible incompatibility with the European convention on human rights. That point was also raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which I convene.

Given the work that is being undertaken by the Scottish Land Commission on land value capture, this bill is not the place for it and I am happy to remove it. On that basis, I will not be supporting amendments 212 and 215, in the name of Alex Rowley.

I move amendment 112.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendments 212 and 215 require ministers, within 18 months of the bill receiving royal assent, to lay regulations to facilitate land value capture. Legislation to facilitate land value capture—or “land value sharing”, as the Scottish Land Commission has usefully termed it—is not a silver bullet that will solve our current housing supply crisis. We need to adopt a much more proactive approach to public interest-led development across the board and enable our public bodies to take the lead in major developments. However, land value sharing could play a key role in that process.

It is deeply disappointing to see the Tories and the Government teaming up to remove one of the transformative amendments to the bill from stage 2. It should not have been beyond the Government to resolve the legal change that would have been required to make land value sharing possible. Labour is giving the Government an opportunity to cement its support for the principle of land value sharing and to commit to providing the legislative framework to make it possible. We approached the Government before the deadline for lodging amendments and stated that we were open to considering its comments and to extending the timeframe if it was willing to support our amendments, so we do not accept timing as an explanation for its refusal to accept them.

The Government has failed to make formal responses to the Scottish Land Commission’s brilliant recent report on land value sharing and to say whether it accepts the report’s recommendations, so it can hardly blame Labour for starting to question its commitment to the concept.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am not sure whether Alex Rowley was in the chamber when I asked the First Minister about that. She said that there would be a full response to the Scottish Land Commission’s report after the bill is dealt with. I am pretty sure that I also heard the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning say in the chamber that he accepted all the commission’s recommendations, but, no doubt, he will be able to confirm that himself.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is interesting that we seem to have a coalition between the Scottish National Party and the Tories to block radical proposals on land reform. I know who the Tories speak for; it is now clear who SNP members speak for.

Will the minister state, in the

Official Report

, that he will legislate on land value capture as soon as is reasonably possible? I think that that is a fair question to put to him. Will he also explain how he plans to make more publicly led development a reality? Despite what the Tories think, achieving both of those things would bring huge benefits, so I hope that the minister will answer those questions.

The Scottish Land Commission has successfully conveyed that land value sharing is not about negating all the benefits that the private sector currently gets from development. A publicly led approach can create additional value that can be used to establish ambitious, attractive, sustainable and healthy places that, above all, are built to work for communities—and surely communities and people should be at the heart of the bill’s intentions.

Many of the issues that we have already discussed and will go on to discuss this week—notably, adequate housing for older people and disabled people—would be much more of a reality if we embraced publicly led development, in which public bodies have more influence on the minimum standards for homes that are being built. Such a level of transformative change is required to realise the Parliament’s vision—not the limited provision that the Government has proposed and the Tory party has accepted.

I hope that both parties will consider supporting amendments 212 and 215.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I welcome Graham Simpson to his new role as spokesperson for the First Minister.

Ahead of consideration of the bill at stage 2, I conducted a consultation on the proposal to enable local authorities to acquire land at its existing use value—a power that they had from 1947 until 1959 and which would strip out a substantial part of the profit that accrues to landowners and developers from the uplift in land values.

The developer Murray Estates, which is developing a large area in the west of Edinburgh, is a good example. Having secured planning consent, the company informed me in a meeting that it would simply sell the land, pocketing a very tidy profit though the granting of a public good—a planning consent.

I know that the Government is interested in the concept, but it has had 18 months to bring forward proposals. Instead, it has kicked the idea into the long grass and missed what might be the only legislative opportunity for some time to introduce such a power.

The power as envisaged—I had an amendment on it at stage 2, which I did not press because Graham Simpson’s amendment had got into the bill—would apply only in masterplan consent areas. It was a very limited power. We intentionally restricted it to enable it to be experimental, to an extent, and to avoid any of the bigger problems that might arise if we applied it across the piece. We focused the power on restricted areas and sought to allow councils to explore the more plan-led and public-led development model that has provided so much success in countries such as Germany.

We oppose the removal from the bill of proposed new section 54CA of the 1997 act and we will vote against amendment 112. We will support amendments 212 and 215.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

As I have consistently made clear, we as the Government are interested in the concept of land value capture or sharing and we will explore how land value uplifts can effectively be captured to fund infrastructure. That is why the Government asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate the issue and why I welcomed the report that it published in May. However, I believe that the provisions that were added to the bill at stage 2 were premature and that they risk breaching the European convention on human rights. I therefore welcome amendment 112, which removes from the bill proposed new section 54CA of the 1997 act.

Although I recognise the intention behind Alex Rowley’s proposals, I cannot support them. Changes to compulsory purchase should be made through primary legislation, and it is unrealistic to reform such a complex area of law in such a short timescale. The issue deserves careful examination and consultation, including on how proposals would interact with other mechanisms such as planning agreements and the proposed infrastructure levy.

We will therefore work with the Scottish Land Commission, the Scottish Futures Trust, local authorities and industry representatives to identify how local authorities can best use existing mechanisms to fund infrastructure and what support they may need to do so. We will also look at how new mechanisms such as the levy and land pooling might complement existing mechanisms, and hence whether any changes are required to existing legislation and, crucially, how we can ensure that any changes are fully compliant with the ECHR.

I refer members to the issues around this, including the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, which is, I am told, not going to be particularly easy to unpick if we are to get to ECHR compliance.

I have said constantly, and I will not move from this, that if legislative change is needed, we will pursue that. It may take time, and it may be in the next session of Parliament, but we will outline how we intend to move forward after the bill has been passed, as has been said. We will, of course, work with colleagues across the Parliament, because, like Mr Simpson, I think that there is, in the main, cross-party support on these issues.

The Presiding Officer

I call Graham Simpson to wind up on the group and say whether he wishes to press amendment 112.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I urge the minister to make a statement on the subject soon after the recess, once we have passed the bill, as we need to get moving on it. There is cross-party support. It might look as though there is disagreement today, but there is not really. We all want to move on this; it is just a question of how we do it in legislation. I do not think that the bill is the appropriate place. It is a very complicated area, and in my view a separate piece of legislation is needed to bring what is proposed forward.

I press amendment 112.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the day, there will be a five-minute suspension while I call all members to the chamber.

14:35 Meeting suspended.

14:40 On resuming—

We move to the division on amendment 112.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 88, Against 31, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 112 agreed to.

Group 17 is on masterplan consent areas. Amendment 13, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 125 and 126.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

M

asterplan consent areas are an area of the bill that has been broadly welcomed, although the exact impact remains to be seen.

I will first address my amendment 13. Section 10(3) introduces a new schedule 5A to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Part 1 of the schedule is concerned with general rules about the content of any masterplan consent area. Section 3 of part 1 lists those areas that may not be included in any such scheme, such as world heritage sites and marine protected areas. Agreement to include such a list followed scrutiny of the bill at stage 1.

Included in the list of areas in which one cannot have a masterplan consent area are national scenic areas, which my amendment proposes to remove. I do not agree that national scenic areas should be excluded by law from such schemes and my amendment 13 would delete NSAs from that list. It is the only designation that should be excluded—I am perfectly happy with the rest—and I will explain why.

National scenic areas, which cover large areas of Scotland, include settlements where there is a need for more affordable housing. Those areas include large parts of Wester Ross, Assynt, Sutherland, the whole of Harris, south Lewis, Kintail, Loch Shiel and a quarter of the Cairngorms national park. As the minister is aware, Scottish Natural Heritage has a consultative role when a development of more than five houses is proposed in a national scenic area, but it does not have a consultative role when any such proposal is specifically provided for in the local development plan.

The minister is probably aware of the recent controversy over affordable housing in north Skye; he will also be aware that circular 9/1987 contains the relevant rules in that regard. In our view, masterplan consent areas could play an important role in providing rural housing. To exclude MCAs by law from being available in national scenic areas is illogical when development can already take place under existing planning provisions. In many areas, masterplan consent areas have the potential to provide a more effective means of providing rural housing—I have been told that by rural housing providers. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 13.

Amendments 125 and 126 reinsert notification, call-in and direction-making powers that were removed at stage 2. Amendment 125 reinstates provisions that allow ministers to direct planning authorities to notify them, which were removed at stage 2. Amendment 126 reinstates ministerial powers to call in proposals for masterplan consent areas and to modify them; again, my amendment 95 at stage 2 removed those powers. I will vote against amendments 125 and 126. I understand that ministers see those powers as a parallel to those that are in place for ordinary planning applications. However, given that we wish to see call-in powers curtailed and, in general, the power of ministers over planning authorities limited, we will oppose those two amendments.

I move amendment 13.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Masterplan consent areas are a new way in which planning authorities can take a proactive place-making approach and provide consent. Mr Wightman has argued that they should be allowed in national scenic areas. At stage 2, I outlined how we have worked with the relevant agencies and agreed that it would be right to restrict MCAs in international and national designations. I still believe that that is a clear and appropriate approach.

Mr Wightman suggests that MCAs could assist in repopulating NSAs in the islands. However, the island authorities have told us they would not envisage bringing forward MCA schemes for land in such areas. Therefore, I do not support amendment 13.

My amendments 125 and 126 seek to reinstate provisions that were removed at stage 2, which would require planning authorities to notify ministers prior to finalising certain MCA schemes and give ministers associated call-in powers. Those are important safeguards. Members will have seen the key agencies group’s letter highlighting the direct read-across to the equivalent mechanism for notification and call-in of planning applications and how leaving that out for masterplan consent areas would create a significant gap. Removing those provisions removed ministers’ ability to consider calling in schemes where there are unresolved objections from national agencies.

Proposals that key agencies object to frequently also attract significant local interest, with a public expectation that objections from a national agency will trigger a requirement for national level scrutiny. I hope that members will support amendments 125 and 126, to ensure that crucial layer of scrutiny for cases that raise issues of national significance.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I am disappointed with the minister’s response on amendment 13. I just do not understand why, if up to five houses can be built in some of the most pressured areas of Scotland, such as Skye and Kintail, b

ecause they are in the local development plan, masterplan consent areas should not be available, too. Just because some local authorities have told the minister that they envisage no role for them, there is no reason to preclude any other local authority in any part of Scotland either today, or in five or 10 years, from availing themselves of such powers.

I am disappointed with the minister’s response, but I will accept however the vote goes. I press amendment 13.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 disagreed to.

Group 18 is on technical/regulations. Amendment 124, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 128, 134, 135, 151 and 153 to 155.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The amendments in this group are mainly technical; they will remove duplication and tidy up wording. Just one of them—amendment 155—has a little more substance. Section 20B of the bill inserts new section 77A into the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. That will enable ministers by regulations to make provision about the payment of compensation, where planning permission granted by a development order is withdrawn and a subsequent application for equivalent consent is refused or granted subject to different conditions.

In its stage 2 report on the bill, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that that power should be subject to the affirmative procedure, because it deals with compensation and can apply or disapply provisions of primary legislation. I was happy to accept that recommendation and consequently lodged an amendment to enact it.

For the rest of the amendments in this group, I can provide more details if members have any questions, but I hope that these technical changes can be supported.

I move amendment 124.

Amendment 124 agreed to.

Amendment 125 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 125 agreed to.

Amendment 126 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The question is, that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 95, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 126 agreed to.

Section 11A—Culturally significant zones

Amendment 127 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 127 agreed to.

Amendment 156, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 157, 157A, 157B, 157C, 157D, 157E, 217 and 159. I point out that if amendment 156 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 157 or, as a consequence, amendments 157A, 157B, 157C, 157D and 157E, as they will all be pre-empted.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Following concerns that constituents expressed to me shortly after I was elected in 2016, I began looking into the question of short-term lets. I got the opportunity to ask a question during general question time on 19 January 2017, and I asked the Scottish Government what plans it had to regulate the growth in short-term letting. The minister will probably remember it as the “audible sex parties” question.

The minister, Kevin Stewart, told me:

“The Scottish Government has no plans to regulate the growth in short-term letting.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2017; c 6.]

He told me that any change of use was a matter “for the planning authority” and that I should engage in the consultation on the planning bill. So, here we are at stage 3: I engaged with the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

I discussed the matter with planners and ran a consultation over summer 2018, and I concluded that the planning rules that govern change of use need to be changed. Put simply, the conversion of a domestic dwelling to a commercial short-term let is a change of use, and it requires consent if the change is material—that is the law today. Given that planning authorities across the country tend to assess the question on the basis of the intensity and frequency of visitors, the problem lies in determining whether such a change is material. Effectively monitoring the comings and goings of visitors is an impossible task for planning officers. Therefore, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 that provided that a simple change of use from a dwelling to a commercial short-term let, which is no longer the sole or main residence of any person, constituted a change of use for the purposes of planning law, with no additional inquiries needing to be made. The amendment was accepted at stage 2 and it formed section 11B of the bill. At stage 2, the minister promised to work with me in advance of stage 3, as did Conservative members.

My amendment 156 reflects recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to define short-term lets, which I have done. Amendment 156 does not, however, as has frequently been claimed, fetter the discretion or autonomy of planning authorities in any way. It merely makes a modest change to the framework for considering change of use—regulations that have been in place since 1997 and that are universal in their application across Scotland. Amendment 156 makes a modest change to the gatekeeping functions that determine what is, and what is not, a change of use. Today, in almost every instance, any change of use to a commercial short-term let is a material change of use, and planning authorities deal with those applications.

Local flexibility, which is at the centre of many people’s concerns, does not arise from planning law. To my knowledge, not a single piece of this planning bill or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 applies only in certain parts of Scotland—Scots law is for Scotland. Local flexibility does not arise from law, but from plans and policies that enable planning authorities to be free to consent to as many or as few applications as they wish, in line with their own plans and policies. My amendment would not change that one bit.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. It would sabotage the central purpose of amendment 156 by making the modest change that I just outlined applicable only to so-called

“short-term let control areas”.

I am sure that the phrase will be repeated ad nauseum by the Scottish National Party and the Tories to pretend that they have done something about the problem. In addition, by making the provisions of amendment 157 subject to further regulations, the opportunity is created for the vested interests in the short-term let industry to influence those regulations in their own interest. That should be of no surprise to any member, given that Airbnb was a member of the Government panel on the collaborative economy.

We already know that some planning authorities are not even interested in the so-called zones. Last week, Glasgow City Council argued that the zonal approach that is suggested by the Conservative amendment does not fit with current policy. A council spokesperson said:

“It would fail to protect the amenity of residents living outside of those zones who may be affected by unauthorised change of use to short stay accommodation”.

All of that raises the question: if planning authorities are not interested in the provisions in amendment 157—the so-called areas, when they are finalised—what should they do? What if they think that the control areas are of no use to them?

I accept the parliamentary arithmetic, and that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment will probably pass. However, some weeks ago, I put a compromise to the Conservatives. I said that we should allow those areas that are not to be short-term let control areas to enjoy some modest improvement in the law—hence my amendments 157A to 157E to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157. They are designed to allow planning authorities for which control areas are deemed not to be the answer a more straightforward means of identifying properties that are changing their use. In other words, if the minister and Rachael Hamilton are genuinely interested in local choice, they should provide one.

I move amendment 156.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

There has been growing concern about platforms such as Airbnb, which are revolutionising the short-term renting of properties in popular tourist destinations. However, Scotland must be a welcoming country, and we must have flexible and affordable accommodation right across Scotland. The major cities of the world, in particular, have been experiencing the pressure. The main focus here has been on Edinburgh—

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer

Hang on one second, Ms Hamilton.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

It might have been missed, but should the member not have declared an interest at the start of her contribution?

The Presiding Officer

That is not a point of order. It is up to each member to decide whether others may judge whether they have something to declare. It is entirely a matter for the member to decide.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Like many other MSPs, I do not have an Airbnb or a short-term rental. However, I thank Neil Findlay for being so considerate.

Of course, the main focus in Scotland has been on areas in Edinburgh, in particular the Old Town. Such areas have been weighed down by the burden of an increase in inward-bound visitors. The Scottish Conservatives are well aware of the concerns of local residents and understand that antisocial behaviour and a lack of housing are just two areas of concern—which Andy Wightman has spoken to me about.

Despite the lack of concrete data, we believe that there is anecdotal evidence to signify a regional variation, with Edinburgh experiencing the highest concentration of short-term let pressure, as I have mentioned.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Presiding Officer

I am sorry, Ms Hamilton, but would you mind pointing the microphone slightly more towards you?

Sorry—I interrupted in the middle of a potential intervention, although it is up to Rachael Hamilton to decide whether to take an intervention or otherwise.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will take an intervention.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I am grateful to the member for giving way. Will she admit to the Parliament that amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment to the work of Andy Wightman? If she is not wrecking his proposal, can she explain why, as a Conservative, she is arguing for a more bureaucratic and time-consuming process?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Of course, I completely disagree with Kezia Dugdale. Amendment 157 delivers a flexible approach, allowing local authorities discretion to set short-term let control areas. We well understand the pressures that are experienced by residents. My amendment seeks to find a solution for local authorities in regulating in those areas that are saturated. I would have thought that Kezia Dugdale would welcome the amendment, and I hope that Labour members will support it after they have heard what we have to say.

I thank the Government for working with the Scottish Government—sorry, that was a Freudian slip—I thank the Government for working with the Scottish Conservatives to achieve that aim. Furthermore, amendment 157 will devolve discretion to local authorities to create short-term let control areas, as I have set out. The purpose of amendment 157 is to target the requirement for planning permission to the most pressured areas, where the local authorities can choose whether or not to promote short-term let control areas, within which planning permission will always be required.

Proposed new section 26B allows a planning authority to designate all or part of the area concerned as a short-term let control area. In designated areas, the use of a dwellinghouse to provide short-term lets would be

“a material change of use of the dwellinghouse”

and would require planning permission. For clarification,

“a tenancy of a dwellinghouse (or part of it) where all or part of the dwellinghouse is the only or principal home of the landlord or occupier”

does not constitute a short-term let.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

The member said that, within the control areas, such a change of use will always require planning consent. Is she not aware that that is the case across Scotland today and that the only question is about the materiality of that change of use? Therefore, her amendment 157 does nothing for the vast majority of authorities in Scotland, which will probably never use those control areas because they will probably be far too bureaucratic and will be subject to the rules that the Scottish Government deems appropriate in defining what a short-term let is.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Unlike Andy Wightman, we are taking this situation very seriously and we are putting residents first, while also being a welcoming country and ensuring that we create job opportunities and grow the economy.

Moreover, my amendment 157 seeks to deliver a flexible approach—which is the right one—allowing local authorities that are saturated by short-term lets to regulate, while, on the other hand, allowing for those authorities that do not have that burden not to be legally bound by regulation. My amendment clearly demonstrates a willingness to ensure a positive outcome for residents and communities, some of whom live in attractive and popular tourist hotspots.

Andy Wightman’s amendments 157A to 157E will, if they are supported by the Scottish Parliament, create a situation whereby all short-term lets that do not fall under any of the exemptions in section 11B will constitute a material change of use six months after the bill receives royal assent and will therefore require planning permission. Many owners and operators may find that the use of property as a short-term let was unauthorised, putting them in breach of planning control and potentially exposing them to enforcement action, should planning authorities be minded to take such action. As a consequence, a burden will be placed on local authorities, owners and operators in obtaining retrospective planning consent.

It seems to me that Andy Wightman’s amendments to my amendment 157 take the kill approach, whereas my amendment takes the cure approach. My amendment seeks to find a balance between happy tourists and happy residents. It will drive tourism growth while protecting residents with regulation. Andy Wightman’s amendments would kill off future growth in tourism in areas that need it, whereas my amendment provides a solution to local problems. I appeal to members to see sense and not support Andy Wightman’s amendments.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank Andy Wightman for the huge amount of work and effort that he has put into this very important issue. We, as well as the whole city of Edinburgh, owe him thanks, because we have a city-wide problem in Edinburgh.

I make one observation, because small observations often signify much larger change. If we look around the streets of Edinburgh, we will see that key safes have started to appear on doorway after doorway of the city’s tenements. That is a sign of a much larger change: thousands of residential properties have been taken out of residential use, which has had a huge impact on the city, particularly in my constituency.

Rachael Hamilton says that we do not have data, so let me give her some data. In my constituency alone, 1,810 addresses out of a total of 35,443 are registered with Airbnb—that is 5 per cent of all dwellings in my constituency. That has had a huge impact on the city and it is why citizens in Edinburgh say that we are increasingly experiencing a Disneylandification of the city. It is changing the nature and affordability of living in Edinburgh.

We must acknowledge that the original purpose of Airbnb has changed. It is now a business that attracts investment, which has had an impact on people and the city. Of course, short-term lets have their place, but they should not be used to the extent that they have been used in Edinburgh. The reality is that average house prices in the city are cruising towards £300,000. We have to regulate the system.

Andy Wightman’s amendment 156 is proportionate and will made a difference. Quite frankly, Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157 is deficient, because it is reactive, not proactive. It would simply be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and would give no additional powers—no meaningful change—to local authorities to regulate planning in this critical area.

I urge members to vote for Andy Wightman’s amendment 156, which is critical to ensuring that buildings cannot undergo a disproportionate change of use and that houses are not taken out of residential use into business use. This city needs that change, and I urge members to vote for the amendment with that in mind, for the sake of Edinburgh. I say particularly to members who represent Edinburgh areas that amendment 156 is required.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This is another group of amendments that illustrates the SNP-Tory stitch-up in the bill.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Here we go.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

They might not like to hear it, but the new SNP-Tory alliance is evident in the bill. We express our support for Andy Wightman’s amendments. [

Interruption

.] The finance secretary can shout all he likes, but the fact is that, once again, a progressive proposal is being halted by the alliance between the Tories and the SNP. That is the bottom line.

We believe that Andy Wightman’s amendments are a proportionate response to the growth of short-term lets across Scotland—from urban centres to the Highlands and Islands. Unfortunately, the proposals have been misrepresented as interventions that will prevent buildings from becoming short-term lets; in fact, only a change of use is required, with local authorities being the arbiter of the change. An Airbnb that is no longer someone’s sole residence represents a change of use—it becomes a commercial entity, not a home. That is simply a fact.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am listening with interest and I have some sympathy with Andy Wightman’s position.

The argument is that protection is needed, and I heard what Daniel Johnson said about the situation in Edinburgh.

Proposed new section 26B(2) of the 1997 act, in Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157, is about short-term let control areas. If those who support amendment 156 are right, the issue is about localism. Under amendment 157, a local authority could choose to designate its whole area as a short-term let control area, and people would have to apply for planning permission in such an area. Amendment 157 would support localism and allow local authorities to make the decisions, and the outcome would be the same, as people would have to apply for a change of use. Does Alex Rowley not support such localism?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will come on to the specific point about Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157.

The fact is that local authorities require a strong understanding of housing need in their areas. It is right that they should know when a home undergoes a change of use and becomes a short-term let, particularly when housing is in short supply in many parts of our country.

We are proud of Scotland’s thriving tourism industry and we consider the room sharing and access to affordable accommodation that Airbnb has enabled to be a positive contribution. However, a high concentration of short-term lets in a small area can have a negative impact on shared spaces and community cohesion. Local authorities understand the crucial role that tourism plays in local economies and we trust that, when they form their policies on short-term lets, which I emphasise are separate from amendment 156, they will reach a balanced position that is in the public interest.

We do not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 157 and 159. The ineffective rent pressure zones are a case in point for why we should not trust ministers with such regulations. I urge the new SNP and Tory alliance to think again, to vote in the interests of the people of Scotland and to vote for Andy Wightman’s amendment 156.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I support amendment 156 and oppose amendment 157. I commend Andy Wightman for his thorough work over a number of months and years; he has done detailed work on the legislation and has taken colleagues with him. He has provided opportunities for briefings and has met the industry every step of the way—he has done a serious and thorough job.

Amendment 156 is particularly astute because it is not particularly radical. I urge members to look at the detail. The amendment does not represent a crusade against the industry of Airbnb or equivalent websites. It seeks to curtail the proliferation of commercial lets where we have allowed big companies or wealthy individuals to buy up properties across a city for the sole purpose of putting them on the internet for short-term lets. Such properties are not residential; they are businesses.

Amendment 156 would make no difference to and have no effect whatever on individual citizens who want to rent out their property for a certain number of days or months in the year or who want to rent out a room in the house in which they live. The amendment would simply curtail the proliferation of commercial lets.

I support the amendment for three key reasons, which I will run through quickly. Airbnb is causing misery to countless numbers of my constituents across Edinburgh—particularly those who live down at the Shore, on Leith Walk or off Easter Road, who are represented by Ben Macpherson; those who live in Portobello or Abbeyhill, who are represented by Ash Denham; and those who live in the Grassmarket or the new town, who are represented by Ruth Davidson. All those members will vote for Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157. There is antisocial behaviour in those areas en masse.

Another reason why it is important to look at amendment 156 in detail is that commercial lets are distorting the property market. When big companies buy up properties, that makes it harder for working people to live in the city. On the internet today, the monthly cost of renting a one-bedroom property in the Grassmarket or on Easter Road is £850. That is pushing people out of the city and beyond its limits, and that is all because people are buying up properties for the purposes that we are voting on today.

There is another reason to support amendment 156. Perhaps the whole point of Airbnb is to provide tourists who come to Edinburgh with the experience of a home and what it is really like to live in the capital city, but all that is lost when the system is commercialised in the way that we have talked about today. I say to Rachael Hamilton that, far from killing off tourism, amendment 156 would provide a sustainable alternative, because it would protect the means by which people can experience what it is like to be in the city as a resident and a citizen.

I believe that amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. It bulldozes right through the purpose of amendment 156 by introducing control areas and it kicks the can down the road into some grass called “One day, maybe.” There is no scrutiny whatsoever in relation to the size of the control areas, how they would operate and who would decide that. It is far too late. SNP members should be uncomfortable in their seats today in voting with the Tories for amendment 157, but some of them should be more uncomfortable than others: those who represent areas where working people are being pushed out, where families are being priced out of their communities and where communities are being hollowed out by a largely unregulated industry.

Amendment 156 would make a small but important change. I commend Andy Wightman for his work and I hope that the constituents of the members who vote against his amendment hold those members to account at the next opportunity.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Andy Wightman has done exactly the right thing on the issue and he has support from a great number of people across Scotland. He has worked diligently to address the real concerns that have been raised by constituents in areas where short-term lets are impacting on the lives of people in the community. Those issues are very real in Edinburgh. I doubt whether there is any representative of the city in the chamber today who has not had representations on the impact of short-term lets.

Short-term lets are an issue not just in Edinburgh but across the world. Last year, I was in Barcelona, where there is a massive movement reacting against short-term lets. Today, the Government and the Tories are coalescing to dismiss the concerns of the people and communities whose lives are affected by the sector. No one is saying that Airbnb and the like should not exist, but we have to ensure that they are regulated and that local authorities, who know their local housing markets, are the regulatory bodies.

Working-class people are being driven out of Edinburgh because they cannot afford to live here. Representatives of the city need to look at themselves in the mirror. I have seen at first hand the growing social movement across the world against such letting. That movement will come here and it will grow here. This debate is just a marker for what will happen because, the more that people are driven from the communities where they should be living, the bigger the reaction will be against such letting. The Tories and the SNP should take note.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I, too, thank Andy Wightman for his efforts on the subject. It is well recognised that he has brought his knowledge to the Parliament, which is to be welcomed.

In my view, Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. Unfortunately, it prioritises—although no more than that—the tourism industry over the rights of individual residents. Rachael Hamilton wants to deal with short-term lets in pressured areas. However, the amendment does not affect the blight that some short-term lets have on residents who do not live in the so-called pressured areas. As we have heard, short-term lets can still cause immense problems for residents who are not in pressured areas.

I listened carefully to Rachael Hamilton. It has been made clear that the control areas are meant to cover pressured areas. Amendment 157 kicks the can down the road on what is an important issue that we should have addressed a long time ago. I was pleased that Andy Wightman addressed the issue, so it is disappointing that the Government, in coalition with the Conservatives, is going to push through amendment 157.

I have a sense of déjà vu because, in the third session of Parliament, such things always happened. I inform members who were not here in that session that the SNP Government and the Conservative Party always got together to push things through. [

Interruption

.] I am only stating what happened. Conservative members should take credit where it is due. In a way, I am congratulating them for the influence that they had over the SNP Administration. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear the member, please.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I am astonished at the kick-back that I seem to be getting. The smiles from the front benches are amusing, I have to say.

We used to accuse the UK Government of kicking the can down the road on Brexit. Amendment 157 kicks the can down the road by—yet again—providing for Government regulations. I have never thought it a good idea to leave regulations to ministers. It is our role in this Parliament to put what we think is right in bills and not to kick the can down the road and leave it to Government ministers to produce regulations that we cannot amend.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am of course very aware of concerns in certain parts of the country and particularly here in Edinburgh about the effects on local communities of houses and flats being used for short-term lets. We need to consider how to address those concerns without undermining the economic benefits of tourism, particularly in parts of the country where there is a wish to increase the amount of holiday accommodation.

Let me be clear on a number of points. First, Mr Wightman said that what he is proposing is a “modest change”, but amendment 156 would require a significant number of new applications, costing applicants up to £4.6 million and planning authorities up to £1.7 million.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

No. I will finish what I am saying first.

It is for planning authorities to determine what constitutes a material change of use of any property. It is Mr Wightman’s opinion that a change of use from sole or main residence to short-term let should always be considered material, but that position is not universally taken in planning decisions and appeals. A lot depends on the location of the property, the impact on amenity, and housing availability in the area, which is not the same in all parts of Scotland.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

This is one of the issues that has bedevilled the conversation. The minister produced a revised financial memorandum that talked about millions of pounds. However, the only people who can determine whether a change is material are planning authorities, and therefore planning applications are required in all instances—that is the case now and would be if amendment 156 were agreed to.

The minister says so in his own consultation paper, “Short-Term Lets: Consultation on a regulatory framework for Scotland”, which was issued in April 2019. He says:

“There is no definition of what constitutes a material change of use from residential to short-term letting. Whether a material change of use has occurred, and planning permission is therefore required, is a matter of fact and degree for the relevant planning authority to consider on a case-by-case basis.”

Therefore, the applications that we are talking about should all be coming into the planning authority anyway, and amendment 156 would make no difference to the volume.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

That argument has been rehearsed in my office on a number of occasions. Mr Wightman will not shift in his opinion—I repeat, “his opinion”—on all this.

Let me move on. Separately from the bill, the First Minister announced a Scottish Government consultation on short-term lets on 29 April, which will run until 19 July. The consultation paper calls for views on the regulation of short-term lets to enable councils to control the number of lets and ensure that such properties make a contribution to the services that they use, with appropriate regulation and enforcement. The intention is to help to deliver our programme for government commitment to give local authorities the powers that they need to balance the needs of their communities with the economic benefits of short-term lets.

We have heard a lot today from Edinburgh members about what is right for Edinburgh. That does not surprise me in the least, but this is not a Scotland-wide difficulty.

That is why I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157, which gives different local authorities, and parts of them, flexibility. What is right for Portree might not be right for Caithness—as I have found out in conversations with members—and what is right for Aberdeen city might not be right for parts of Aberdeenshire. That is why the localism and flexibility in Rachael Hamilton’s amendment are needed. That approach would allow planning authorities to consider the impact of short-term lets in every part of their area, to implement measures where needed, and to exercise their local knowledge and judgment to address short-term letting proportionately. It is always frustrating when members speak out in favour of localism but, when it comes to the crunch, are often willing to vote against it. That does not wash with me.

I do not support Andy Wightman’s amendment 156, or amendments 157A to 157E, which would wrap around short-term let control areas to perpetuate the situation in which all short-term lets across Scotland would require permission for change of use.

Amendment 219 would bring the provisions of section 11B into effect six months after royal assent, and would leave landlords and planning authorities very little time to prepare for the changes, whichever version of section 11B is agreed to.

I therefore call on members to reject the amendments in this group that are in the name of Mr Wightman and to support amendments 157 and 159, which are in the name of Rachael Hamilton.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I am beyond despair at this debate. We have properties in this city, in Aberdeen, in Portree—I know that there is a problem in Portree, because my mother lives there—and right across Scotland for which people have not applied for planning consent and for which they should be applying for planning consent. Nothing in my amendment 156 changes the fact that they should be applying. It merely makes it easier to identify the circumstances in which they should, and it prevents planning officers from having to stand at properties and gateways working out who is coming and going.

I have two examples of unregulated flats in this city. One was occupied by an 83-year-old woman who is the last resident in her stair. She keeps her front door open—not the main door on the road. One day a naked woman ran in, followed by a naked man. They had sex in front of her in her living room. They were followed by another naked man who ran in and shouted, “You are in the wrong flat.” That is the kind of breakdown in social order in places that people regard as home that short-term lets are causing.

In another case, a fifth-year pupil who needed to pass her English exam to get into university got no sleep because there was a bunch of what were probably rugby fans partying all night in the flat above her. She failed her exam and did not get into university. That is why I feel passionately—as do many other members—that a more effective solution is required in the planning system, in which the means already exist.

This debate has been bedevilled by misinformation. Rachael Hamilton talked about flexibility and Michelle Ballantyne about localism. Nowhere in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the Planning (Scotland) Bill, or the 1997 act is any planning authority allowed to opt out of planning law. The flexibility comes in plans and policies.

I have in my hand a report from Glasgow City Council that says that an enforcement action is necessary regarding use of a “flatted dwelling” that

“is contrary to policy CDP10 (Meeting Housing Needs) and Supplementary Guidance SG11 (Meeting Housing Needs), contained within the City Development Plan, adopted in March 2018.”

Glasgow City Council has designated areas of the city—which it can call short-term let control areas if it wants—in which it has said that there shall be no short-term lets. That has been done through plans and policies. If Aberdeen, Portree or Paisley wants lots of those areas, they are free to have them. Nothing in my amendment prevents that.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Given that the minister has a consultation on this very area, is it not advisable to wait for the results and end up with a much better situation, as there is in Paris, where an Airbnb let has to be the main residence, is only let for a third of the year and has to be registered? Is there not a possibility that we could get a much better system?

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I thank the member for that intervention, but I am not sure that she has read the consultation. It is on a proposal to licence the operators, not any changes to planning law. The approach is just like the approach that is taken in relation to alcohol licensing: the first box that you have to tick if you want to have an alcohol licence is to confirm that you have planning permission for the premises from which you intend to operate.

The situation will be resolved by the use of a more effective planning regime that determines whether those uses can take place and then by a licensing regime that makes sure that the operator is a fit and proper person. I welcome the approach that has been taken in Glasgow.

This process has been disappointing, to put it mildly. Promises to work together have been broken. In fact, I was told that Rachael Hamilton’s original amendment—amendment 1, which was lodged in December—was not even endorsed by her party. I first became aware of amendment 157 when it was handed to me by a Conservative MSP, minutes before I was due to have a meeting with representatives of the short-term let industry. Worse still, they had been given a copy of it before I had. I was put in the rather strange position of knowing nothing about what was in the amendment while the representatives of the short-term let industry, who had flown up from London, knew all about it and thought that it was a wonderful compromise.

It is no surprise that the Conservative Party’s tourism spokesperson had nine meetings with the industry and has lodged one amendment to the bill. I had six such meetings, during which I worked hard to find some changes that would address industry concern—

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. I would like to state that I have not had nine meetings with the short-term let sector, and I would like to see the evidence that Andy Wightman is using to suggest that I have.

The Presiding Officer

I note that the member wishes to correct the record. There are a number of methods by which that can be done, and they are open to both members. In this case, she has alerted the member to her feelings about the matter and it will be up to Andy Wightman to decide whether to take action.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I thank Rachael Hamilton for that intervention. I have examined the lobbying register and I am happy to share with her the nine occasions on which she met the industry. She has not met Airbnb nine times; she has met the wider industry nine times.

I worked hard with the industry. We were even at the point where we had agreed drafting changes, and then, four weeks ago, amendment 157 landed in front of us.

Airbnb, HomeAway and all the other companies have lobbied hard against the regulation of this out-of-control industry all across the world, and they have got what they want: an anodyne amendment that is worse than the status quo and which requires further regulations by ministers, which will no doubt be the target of further industry lobbying with the aim of watering them down.

From conversations that I have had with planning officials, constituents in Lothian and people throughout Scotland—including in Portree—I know that the reform that is proposed by amendment 156 would be welcome. Unfortunately, it has been sabotaged by an amendment in the name of Borders-based Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton, with the connivance of the SNP Government. Her amendment is designed to restrict my modest reform to short-term let control areas, which, as I say, would result in a situation that is worse than the status quo.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

I stood up before to say that I had empathy with Mr Wightman. I have read everything that he has sent around, and I had a huge amount of empathy with the issue. On a personal level, I debated with myself between the two options. However, the way that he is phrasing his argument now has lost my empathy.

Mr Wightman started his contribution by saying that what he is asking for already exists and that, under planning law, everyone who has a short-term let should already be applying to the authorities. However, if that is the case—personally, having looked at the issue, I do not necessarily agree with that point—the authorities have not enforced that. He is now saying that they all want the provision that he is proposing because it would help them. However, if, as he has been arguing, they already have that power, why have they not been using it? I am now thoroughly confused about what Mr Wightman’s position is.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I think that the Conservatives have been confused about this all the way along. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 cites 11 use classes of property, including businesses, residential institutions, assembly and leisure premises and so on. Short-term lets are a sui generis use class—they exist outwith those 11 classes. That means that, prima facie, they constitute a change of use, and only planning authorities can make a determination about whether that change of use is material, which would mean that, in all instances, a planning application is required.

One of the problems that we have in this city—I know that it is a problem in Portree, too—is that people are operating and changing use illegally. That is why there are so many enforcement actions. That is why Glasgow is doing what it is doing—and it is doing it effectively, because it has good plans and policies. All that I am arguing for, as Kezia Dugdale said, is a modest reform to remove the difficult-to-apply materiality test.

I will wind up. The short-term let industry has run a sustained campaign of misinformation and downright lies about the impact of amendment 156. It has frightened folk in this city and across Scotland who are just letting out a room in their homes into believing that I was intent on shutting down their enterprises. I know that, because they wrote to me with that concern. I was pleased to correct the record and say that amendment 156 would have nothing to do with them.

It is deeply disappointing that I have been unable to secure improvements in the planning system for those who are affected by the blight of short-term lets. SNP and Tory MSPs might be pleased with themselves this week, but I will continue to fight to defend the residents of Scotland in every way that I can.

The Presiding Officer

Before we move to the question on amendment 156, I point out that, if amendment 156 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 157 or any of the amendments to amendment 157—that is, amendments 157A, 157B, 157C, 157D and 157E.

The question is, that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 156 disagreed to.

Amendment 157 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Amendment 157A moved—[Andy Wightman].

The question is, that amendment 157A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 34, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 157A disagreed to.

Amendments 157B, 157C, 157D and 157E not moved.

The question is, that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 33, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 157 agreed to.

I point out to members that the debate on the previous group was a long one and we are running slightly behind.

Group 20 is on assessment of health effects.

Amendment 198, in the name of Monica Lennon, is the only amendment in the group.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests: I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland.

At stage 2, I argued strongly that planning has a unique role in protecting and improving public health, and I presented a number of ideas to maximise the potential of the Planning (Scotland) Bill to make a real difference. I successfully amended the bill to allow an assessment of the “likely health effects” of “national ... or major” developments to be considered

“before planning permission ... is granted”.

That is a requirement on Scottish ministers to make regulations, and amendment 198 is an add-on that would strengthen that.

Amendment 198 sets out what the regulations should take account of. I will run through that as briefly as I can. I stress that the amendment is about making sure that public health is central to the planning system. It would add to the requirements on major and national developments, and is not about small-scale or household applications.

Amendment 198 includes consideration of “walking and cycling routes”, “access to ... greenspace” and “play and recreation facilities”. I have lodged the amendment because the health of people in Scotland must be to the fore when we are planning our communities. I think that we would all agree that that must include physical health and mental health, and that it has to be done in a way that also tackles health inequalities.

What would the assessment do? It would look at things such as the provision of “infrastructure, including housing quality”. All colleagues will know from their case work that poor-quality housing, in which people are living in homes that are cold and hard to heat, that are damp or cramped or that have little outdoor space, can have a negative impact on health. Respiratory problems come up a lot, so that needs to be taken into account in large-scale developments.

On transportation, the requirement would be to consider active travel, “public transport provision” and “car dependency”. Members will recognise that the benefits of active travel go far beyond the positive physical impacts. Walking and cycling are good for our mental health, better for the environment and reduce transport costs.

Members might be wondering why we need amendment 198. It is because we cannot take for granted that those matters are being properly addressed under the current system. Last year,

Scottish Housing News

covered a report entitled “Progress on low car neighbourhoods in Scotland”. It found that housing developers are locking people into unhealthy and expensive car dependency by failing to provide infrastructure and failing to enable access to healthier travel options including walking, cycling and car sharing.

Access to healthcare came up a lot at stage 2; I know that it is important to members. When I was working as a planner and we talked about infrastructure, that often concerned drainage and roads, for example, and was not so much about healthcare. However, I know, from speaking to colleagues from across the chamber, that, increasingly, people in new housing find that they cannot get general practitioner appointments and that GPs are closing their waiting lists. That is why consultation of the national health service and the chief medical officer, which we discussed yesterday, is really important. We are not joining up systems.

Amendment 198 is about healthcare services and the opportunities that we need to provide in communities. We talk about building units—as house builders do—or houses, but what we actually need to build are communities. The amendment is about how we can build strong, resilient and cohesive communities that bring people together and create opportunities for participation, so that we do not see an increase in the social isolation and loneliness that exist at the moment.

Another healthcare issue that came up at stage 2 was access to public toilets, which some colleagues thought was not for the planning system to consider in great detail. Many members have raised the issue. Because of poor and limited access to public toilets, some people with disabilities are not able to get out and participate in our communities, and there are particular issues for women and older people. We want that to be looked at.

Amendment 198 would also require that regulations consider green space and children’s play areas. We know that access to green space has a positive impact on people’s mental health and wellbeing, and that play is vital for children’s development and wellbeing. The aim is, therefore, to put such matters at the heart of decision making in planning. We must give people the right opportunities to live healthy lifestyles, including making choices to cycle, walk, access green space, play and be active in their communities. Planning has the power to do that.

Amendment 198 has the potential to contribute positively to public health and to improve the health and wellbeing of all our communities.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I cannot support amendment 198. Its list of matters to be considered is too prescriptive and should not be set in stone without further consideration and consultation.

Although all the items in the list are clearly valuable in the right circumstances, the wording of amendment 198 means that all of them would have to be considered in every health impact assessment. The World Health Organization is clear that screening and scoping should be used to ensure that such assessments are appropriate to a proposed development.

The Scottish Government’s public health reform agenda is considering place and public health reform, and the place principle. The place principle is a key consideration for planning, and it is about services and assets coming together to deliver better outcomes for the people in an area. We expect that work to inform regulations on health impact assessments. It would therefore be premature to include a set of criteria for the regulations at this stage. I therefore ask members not to support amendment 198.

This afternoon, there has been some talk about the Government’s having accepted Tory and other amendments. In that regard, I note that, apart from the amendments that were lodged by Rhoda Grant, all the Scottish Labour Party’s amendments were lodged in the final two days that were available for doing so, when it had had seven months in which to discuss its ideas with us, if it had wished to do so. In many cases, it chose not to do that. That is why the Government has not supported some of Labour’s amendments. We have supported many of Rhoda Grant’s amendments because of the time that was available to communicate about them and to get things right. I cannot force members to come and engage with the Government, but some have done so and the bill has benefited from the resulting communication.

The Presiding Officer

Does Monica Lennon wish to wind up or to add anything at this stage?

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I do, Presiding Officer.

I want to pick up on the minister’s final point. I am very privileged to be a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which considered the bill at stage 2. As someone who worked as a planner for 12 years, across industry and in the public sector, I find it very disappointing that the minister had meetings with selected MSPs, which amounts to cherry picking. [

Interruption

.]

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

rose

—

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

No, I want to continue. I will let the minister back in in a moment, if he would care to sit down for a second.

I see in the public gallery people who care very deeply about these issues. Andy Wightman and I—with others, including Graham Simpson—worked very hard and in good faith to find points of agreement. However, as we have seen during the past two days, we have obviously been betrayed by Graham Simpson—[

Interruption

.] When other colleagues and I had individual meetings, the minister did not come to them with an open mind, so I feel that the minister has been very selective. I am sure that Rhoda Grant is very grateful that he picked her out, but Labour members are a team and we are very—[

Interruption

.]

No, no, no.

Presiding Officer—

The Presiding Officer

Order, please. [

Interruption

.]

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Stay classy, minister. I want to stick to the planning bill. I am sure that the minister has issues in his own group

, but the bill actually matters—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Order, please. Let us hear Ms Lennon.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The planning bill actually matters to people in communities—some of them are in the gallery. I think that the minister will reflect on stage 2 and will know fine well that he was very selective about what he was willing to discuss. He had a closed mind on equal rights of appeal, which we will get to.

On amendment 198, which we are talking about now, the minister’s response was pitiful and showed how timid the Government is when it comes to the opportunity actively to transform the planning system. If we step back and look at the many challenges that the country is facing, we hear about record levels of investment in the NHS and record workforce levels, but people’s health is not improving. It is outcomes that matter. I do not know where the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport is, but she will know that Audit Scotland is saying—

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the member take an intervention?

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Ms Lennon is quite incorrect to say that people’s health in Scotland is not improving. I advise her to look at the statistics and to understand health in Scotland before she makes such random comments.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I do not think that it is “random” to care about the health inequalities that persist in Scotland. Despite successive health secretaries, we are not seeing real improvement. In fact, we have the Auditor General warning that the future of the NHS is not sustainable. Let us join systems up and see what we can do through the planning system to help people to live longer and to live well in their communities.

We have well-established frameworks for environmental impact assessments. I am sure that the education secretary—to whom the minister is talking—knows much more about this, but if the minister cares to listen for a moment, he will hear me ask why, if we can do environmental impact assessments, we cannot do health impact assessments to the same standard.

The minister talked about amendment 198 being overly prescriptive, but we cannot leave such matters to chance. I am very disappointed that the minister is not willing to accept or support amendment 198, which is simply an add-on to the bill that would clarify what we expect in all our planning authorities. Communities want such transparency. How else is the minister going to satisfy colleagues such as Alex Cole-Hamilton and Iain Gray, who know from their communities of examples of people being unable to get a GP appointments? They have the keys to a shiny new house, but they cannot see a doctor.

I would be happy to give way on that. The minister is shaking his head, but what I described is the reality. We need practical solutions. I am willing to give way to the minister, but—

The Presiding Officer

Ms Lennon, I think that it is time to conclude your remarks, and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 198.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Ms Lennon will give way, so I will intervene. She has spoken “eloquently”—I put that in inverted commas—about the health effects related to housing developments, but not all national and major developments are housing developments. How would amendment 198 fit in with and be relevant to infrastructure projects on flood prevention or renewable energy?

I make the point again that Ms Lennon chose not to engage. If she had engaged, we might have come up with an amendment that was workable. Unfortunately, she chose, once again, not to engage.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I do not remember receiving an invitation, but I would say—[

Interruption

.] We are not here to discuss diary issues, but I would say that I have worked with and I still know—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Ms Lennon, I think that we have had a full debate on amendment 198.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am just about to finish.

The Presiding Officer

Conclude your remarks and we will move to a vote on the amendment.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I know many planners who work across Scotland and they are more than capable, if they get the right guidance, of making sure that they hold developers to account. They can ask developers to provide information. Maybe the minister should have more faith in Scotland’s planners.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. [

Interruption

.] One second, members. I am conscious of the time and I am afraid that we are running rather behind schedule, so before we move to the vote on amendment 198, I say to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans that, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the time limit by up to 30 minutes.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my colleagues for the second time in 24 hours, I move,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[

Graeme Dey

]

The Presiding Officer

The minister has moved the motion at my request. The question is, that the motion be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

No!

The Presiding Officer

If we are not agreed, we will have to move to a vote. We will have a vote on the motion.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Another U-turn, Richard?

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Yes.

[

Laughter

.]

The Presiding Officer

I will put the question again, and I will make sure that extra condiments are put outside for Mr Lyle to keep his blood sugar up.

The question is, that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes.

The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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

Amendment 198 disagreed to.

Amendment 128 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Group 21 is on renewable energy infrastructure. Amendment 199, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 203, 220 and 221.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

The aim of amendment 199 is to require renewable energy infrastructure to be included in commercial and domestic new-builds over a certain scale, as is highlighted in the amendment, after a certain date. I have used the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 definition of “major development”, which refers to housing, business and general industry.

Amendment 199 builds on the one that I was delighted to have passed at stage 2, which obliges local authorities to consider renewable energy in the formulation of local development plans. I am clear that in this climate emergency, it is imperative that the Scottish Government sets clear guidelines about what is acceptable in relation to how our dwellings and commercial properties are heated and lit. However, I have not gone as far as to lodge an amendment to say that every newly built house and commercial building must have only renewable energy installed, tempting as that was. That would be the obvious and logical

next step, and nothing in amendment 199 prevents that from happening in the near future.

In relation to larger developments, Scottish ministers would, by regulations, require an application for planning permission for a major development to include renewable energy infrastructure. Regulations to meet the aims of amendment 199 would have to be drafted and laid before Parliament two years after royal assent. That would give the construction industry time to plan for the deadline, and sends a clear signal to manufacturers about where they should be going in the climate emergency.

The shift could be part of the just transition with appropriate strategic planning and relevant training strategies developed.

There is also a consequential amendment to make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

The amendment is supported by Scottish Renewables, which agrees that it would give important support to small-scale renewable energy projects, such as solar photovoltaic and hydro, and Scotland’s renewable heat industry.

Amendment 203 would remove the requirement for planning permission for small-scale renewables. Certain small-scale renewable developments would automatically be permitted development and so would not need planning permission. For the purposes of the provision, “small-scale renewables” would mean renewable sources of energy

“including ... anaerobic digestion, biomass ... solar, wind or water with a total power output of 20 megawatts or less.”

I stress that the amendment says “including”. The crucial element is that it is an accurate description of what constitutes “small-scale renewables” from the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2009.

Ministers would by regulations be able to set appropriate exemptions, for a listed building or a property in a conservation area, for example.

The permitted development system is under the development orders that ministers can make under section 30 of the 1997 act. In terms of precedent, some amendments at stage 2 sought to piggyback on that system as a way to say that planning permission should be granted automatically or could not be classed as permitted development in certain circumstances. An example is John Finnie’s amendment 164 on Gypsy Traveller sites.

I have included regulation-making powers for Scottish ministers to adjust exemptions and circumstances as they see fit, and the whole amendment is subject to the affirmative procedure through consequential amendment 221.

Amendment 203 is also supported by Scottish Renewables, which notes that the small-scale renewables sector urgently needs attention in response to the closure of the feed-in tariff and the limited utility of the smart export guarantee.

I hope that the Scottish Government can lend a hand in this area. In this climate emergency, I hope that all members will accept the necessity of supporting this straightforward amendment, which would enable a speedy, reasonable and proportionate way for residents to transfer to ways of heating and lighting their homes that contribute to the transformational change that we all need to act on as we shift to net zero emissions.

I move amendment 199.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Government is fully committed to ensuring that the planning system contributes to achieving a net zero economy. Although I commend the intentions behind amendments 199 and 221 on renewable energy infrastructure, I cannot support the introduction of provisions that could add complexity and regulatory burden and which cut across the proper consultation and public engagement that is already under way. That engagement includes a review of the energy standards in the Scottish building regulations, and we are considering next steps to further enhance the energy performance of buildings, which will include investigation of the continuing role of renewable technologies to deliver new buildings that have very low energy demand and emissions. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcomes of the review with primary legislation that could not then be changed without a further bill.

Amendments 203 and 220 seek to impose a requirement on ministers to introduce permitted development rights for renewable energy infrastructure for both domestic and non-domestic properties. However, permitted development rights are already in place for the majority of technologies that are listed, and we have previously consulted on others.

Further, the amendments seek to introduce permitted development rights for developments that could fall within the category of major developments, such as a 20 megawatt wind farm. Such permitted development rights would remove public consultation, including pre-application consultation, if they were to be progressed.

We have already committed to consulting on a work programme to expand permitted development rights following this bill, alongside a sustainability appraisal that has been progressed with input from a wide range of stakeholders. We should not pre-empt the outcome of that consultation.

Through energy efficient Scotland, we are putting in place a regulatory framework to make it the norm to invest in improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions from existing buildings. We are also taking steps to strengthen our policy framework for low-carbon heat and will publish a heat decarbonisation policy statement and action plan in summer 2020.

In short, the amendments cut across a wide range of work that is already under way to support renewable energy infrastructure. I ask Ms Beamish not to press them. She can be assured that I will continue to engage with her on the issues, as I have done in the past.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I find it perplexing that the minister has said that my amendment on small-scale renewables would, if I understand him correctly, make for more complexity. I am attempting to make things much simpler for people, particularly for the many constituents of mine who are off grid and want to move to low-carbon sources of heat and light but who have found that they would have to go through quite onerous processes in order to do so.

I do not really understand why the minister made those comments. I am hoping that he will make an intervention, to explain his point of view.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Again, if there had been earlier discussion on the issues, we could have got it right. As it stands, Claudia Beamish’s amendments would make things much more complex in some cases at points where we want to get rid of complexity.

That illustrates why it is always good to talk at early stages about issues, so that we can help to get it right.

The Presiding Officer

I call Claudia Beamish to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 199.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I will not press the amendment, because it is not something that should be voted down. I am disappointed by what the minister has said. In the lead-up to the bill, I have worked on other issues with the minister, his ministerial colleagues and others, and I would be prepared to work in that way again. Frankly, I lodged the amendment at a lateish stage because I thought that it was quite straightforward.

I am not prepared to have the amendment voted down. I will have dialogue with the minister about what can be done in the future.

The minister highlighted a point about the building regulations—I was keenly aware of it, which made me hesitate about whether to lodge an amendment on the larger-scale infrastructure that I have argued for. I am aware that issues in the building regs will be consulted on, and that gives me some cause for optimism.

Amendment 199, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 14C—Determination of applications: cultural venues, facilities and uses

Amendment 176 moved—[Lewis Macdonald].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 176 disagreed to.

Amendment 177 moved—[Lewis Macdonald].

The question is, that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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

Amendment 177 disagreed to.

Amendment 178 not moved.

Amendment 179 moved—[Lewis Macdonald].

The question is, that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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

Amendment 179 disagreed to.

Amendment 129 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The question is, that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.