I am not sure about the Select Committee’s conclusion, but I am grateful for the intervention. I may come to a different conclusion from Opposition Members, but we must apply the same logic. Our decisions must be evidence-based, because this paving Bill gives authority to do something that will, given the assurances by the Minister, involve a regulatory impact assessment.

The decision may be that this is not the way to go with regard to Scotland. I do not know whether an equivalent level would apply in England, which does not have an equivalent to the Scottish Executive—an executive or regional authority—that would have the right and the power to take a proportion of the money from the planning gain supplement. If x minus y resulted in more money going directly to local authorities in England, it would probably be beneficial. If central Government were to take y—let us say, 30 per cent.—and spend it on infrastructure to support the local authority from which the money obtained through a planning gain agreement came, it would be beneficial.

The problem in Scotland is that there is another level. In fact, the money could be absorbed into the Scottish Executive budget and not come out at the level required to give the local authority—for example, West Lothian—the necessary money for infrastructure that would allow it to absorb the housing. It is plain—I believe that this was said to the Minister in my presence—that there is no reason for West Lothian to absorb people from Edinburgh who need to live near Edinburgh because of their employment, if that would result in a budget deficit. In that case, the council would simply not allow the development to go ahead, and many bids for housing plans would not be approved. That would be a tragedy, and I would not support such a retrograde step.