���˿���

It is challenging, but what colleagues have put on the record today is important, because it logs that there is an appetite for change and that there are both opportunities and major challenges. Before we get to stage 3, there is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to engage with us constructively so that we can reflect on the comments that have been made and make sure that, as this piece of legislation goes through, we do not miss another opportunity, because change is needed now.

Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 31 not moved.

You say that the amendment would, in effect, result in overlap and repetition, but, with regard to its purpose, do you not accept that all of the issues that I have been talking about, and some of the other issues that colleagues have mentioned this morning, need to be brought into the previous marine plan that you say exists but that lots of stakeholders are not satisfied with?

This has been quite a constructive debate, because there is ambition to make things happen. The cabinet secretary said a few times that an amendment would involve duplicating powers that ministers already have. That illustrates that people want to see action. It is not enough just to have a power; it is about how it is used, monitored and reflected on. There has been a constructive discussion, but there is a need for more action.

It is critical to link the national marine plan and regional marine plans and to give them a local focus that involves communities, not only to bring people around the table but to lead to action that will improve their lives and our environment.

The fact that we are in a nature and climate emergency means that things are changing. I get that research is being done and that things do not change immediately, but we need to start doing survey work and planning ahead now. There will be tipping points involving things such as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation that we need to start reflecting on now. We need joined-up thinking and action—there are opportunities as well as challenges.

The responses from both cabinet secretaries have been relatively constructive and positive. If members do not move amendments today because of what we have been told by the cabinet secretaries, that means that there is a clear appetite for further discussion before stage 3, so that we do not accidentally miss out on addressing the very good points that stakeholders have made to us. If our amendments, as currently crafted, do not take the ideal approach—if, for example, they introduce inadvertent duplication or are not perfect—I would like us to get them right before stage 3.

If there are not to be further amendments on an issue, there needs to be an explanation—now or very soon—from the Scottish Government about what is happening. These matters cannot be kicked into touch. It is not just about the pressure from stakeholders; there is a real need to see practical action, so that we deliver where there is a degree of agreement around the table. That is critical. If there is a consultation on the way, we need to know what that means. That is key.

Some of the amendments will be moved today, but others will not be. There is an appetite for change and for more action. Change is under way, but we need to ensure that it is communicated effectively to our communities and to key stakeholders, so that we do not just kick all this into touch and say that the most recent marine legislation sorted everything so we do not need to do anything. The fact that we have amendments shows that people feel that we need action.

There are a lot of amendments in the group, and colleagues will be relieved to know that I am not going to refer to them all.

I think that everyone here is trying to strengthen to the bill and respond to the various stakeholders who have spoken to us about the improvements that they think need to be made. I thank the Marine Conservation Society, the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, Scottish Environment LINK and the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust for helping me to craft my amendments in the group.

Given that a huge portion of our environmental sector is focused on our marine, coastal and fishing environments, the amendments are incredibly important not just for our seas and our marine ecosystem but for the people who rely on those for their livelihoods.

My amendment 17 would provide that

“The Scottish Ministers must, within 12 months of Royal Assent, publish a national marine strategy”.

Many stakeholders in the marine sector have been asking for that. The strategy would need to set out clear indicators or methods for measuring progress. My amendment would ensure that ministers, in preparing or reviewing the strategy, were obliged to consult relevant stakeholders and take account of “new environmental challenges”; that is something that Scottish Environment LINK mentioned.

Amendments 93, 328 and 95 would all strengthen our focus on adaptation as well as mitigation. Amendment 93 would update section 68(3) of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 so that ministers must state the ecosystem recovery objectives for any new nature conservation marine protected area. That would ensure that designation criteria are properly aligned with future nature recovery targets under part 1 of the bill.

Amendment 95 would require ministers to review the guidance annually so that it could be updated in line with new scientific evidence and best practice, which is vital to raising awareness and delivering best practice whereby lessons can be learned, shared and implemented.

I thank the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and SIFT for helping to craft my amendments 156 and 265 on inshore fishing. Amendment 156 would give ministers the power to bring in low-impact fishing priority areas, in line with their commitments to support a just transition to a more sustainable industry, and I have worked closely with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation on it. It is a modest proposal that would require any such areas to be subject to extensive consultation; it could be done only to help meet any targets that are set under the bill, to fulfil the national marine plan or to help achieve ministers’ legal duty to deliver good environmental status.

Having said that—and, again, this has the support of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation—I encourage members to also support amendments 96 to 101, in the name of Maurice Golden, which are systemic and in the same space. Those amendments draw on the positive experience with the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities that operate successfully in English waters. What is proposed would fit within a potential hierarchy in the 2010 act of 11 regional marine plans sitting below one national marine plan.

My amendment 265 would give ministers the powers to protect the parts of our sea lochs that are most important as marine carbon stores. Those make a significant contribution to Scotland’s climate mitigation efforts, burying more carbon than the whole North Sea and storing more per hectare than peatland. However, there is significant concern that carbon that is sequestered in those sediments would, if it was disturbed, re-enter the water column, and would then be at risk of returning to the atmosphere.

Scottish ministers have drafted the “Scottish Blue Carbon Action Plan”, which rightly supports more research, and there are indeed many areas where that research is needed. The areas referred to are only rarely fished, so their closure would have a minimal impact on the trawl sector, which is the primary cause of disturbance to our inshore marine muddy sediments. However, their protection would have a significant impact on the amount of carbon that Scotland can sequester.

I also support amendment 294, in the name of Ross Greer, on enforcement, because taking stronger action is important.

In conclusion, the amendments in the group are important because they would improve our environment for coastal communities as well as for those who are working in the fishing industry, which would, in turn, enable us to create a more sustainable future for Scotland.

I have spoken to Government ministers, and I am conscious that they have a variety of views on these issues. I am trying to get positive results here, so I am keen to listen to what ministers have to say. Like other colleagues, I want to be constructive and ensure that we get the best possible legislation in order to have the best possible impact.

I move amendment 17.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

That is the point that I was making in relation to lessons to be learned. When we established the first national parks, making sure that people could afford to live in those areas was critical. As a former planner in the central region, I knew that the cost of housing was an issue for people. It is important that we have a joined-up approach. The issues about the phrases “have regard to” and “facilitate implementation” come up regularly when legislation is being discussed, so it is important to find a better, stronger way to frame them, and I am glad that the committee has options in front of it to look at.

To pick up on the convener’s point, my amendment 122 would broaden national park authorities’ responsibilities to include sustainable development—that means having joined-up thinking so that we are not just doing one thing without thinking about the wider issues—affordable housing, employment and ensuring that local communities benefit alongside visitors.

National parks are wonderful places for people to visit, but we also have to think about the communities that live within them and make sure that their lives are successful. Therefore, amendment 123 would shift the focus from individual prosperity to community prosperity, aligning park aims with collective social and environmental goals.

Amendment 124 would strengthen the duty on public bodies by requiring them to “seek to further” national park aims, rather than simply “have regard to” them, as I mentioned earlier. I note that the cabinet secretary has an alternative amendment, amendment 61—it is good that we are broadly in the same place, so I will listen to what she has to say.

It is vital that the community prosperity issue is formally included in the legislation, because communities need to be listened to and respected, and that must be acted on. Accountability is crucial in that respect. My amendment 126 proposes to insert a new subsection to add safeguards and accountability when designating parks. That picks up on the points that the convener made. Lessons need to be learned.

My amendment 127 would include a clear definition of “cultural development” to ensure that arts, heritage, the Gaelic language and creative industries are considered in park planning. That is important, because we think about national parks in terms of nature and beautiful landscapes, but we also need to think about cultural heritage and history, which are important.

Amendment 128 would require ministers to publish a national parks policy statement every 10 years, with consultation and parliamentary approval, to improve transparency and long-term planning. I thank all the organisations that have written in to support the amendment. There is a huge appetite to push our national parks up the agenda, while recognising the work that is being done, and to enable more transparency, long-term planning and support for the work that is carried out. I note that Tim Eagle has a similar amendment, but I prefer mine, because I think that it is stronger. Again, that is for the committee to decide.

Amendment 129 would remove vague wording and require draft designation orders with full documentation, to strengthen clarity and public confidence in new park proposals. There are lessons to be learned on how we build support for our existing and new national parks.

Finally, amendments 125 and 130 would strengthen obligations on public bodies so that they would have to “actively implement” national park plans, rather than just facilitate them. I mentioned the principles behind that.

My amendments in this group would introduce safeguards by inserting new subsections to limit ministerial discretion, and would provide a clear statutory definition of “cultural development” to encompass art, heritage, creativity, the Gaelic language and the creative industries, to give us consistency in policy making.

I argue that, taken together, my amendments would embed sustainability, community benefits, cultural recognition and accountability at the heart of Scotland’s national parks, thereby creating a more robust, transparent and socially grounded framework for their future management and future designations. It is about learning lessons but also about looking to the future to see what we can do in Scotland to take us beyond where we are at the moment.

Part 3 of the bill provides a welcome opportunity for us to update Scotland’s national parks so that they can better respond to our nature and climate crises. The timing is really good. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 was one of the first pieces of legislation that our Parliament supported in 2000. I am personally engaged in making sure that we learn lessons from the 25 years since that legislation was introduced and our parks were subsequently created.

I have nine amendments in the group. I thank Scottish Environment LINK, Scottish Land & Estates and the Scottish Rewilding Alliance for helping me to craft my amendments. We need clearer criteria and greater transparency to ensure that national parks can deliver on their purpose. We also need clearer, more accountable processes for creating new parks, supported by defined criteria, an improved national policy framework and independent expert reporting.

My amendments aim to expand the statutory aims to include the promotion of sustainable development, affordable housing and employment and to ensure that national parks contribute to community prosperity. My amendments also tighten the obligations on public authorities by replacing weaker duties that use wording such as “have regard to” and “facilitate implementation” with stronger requirements that seek to further and actively implement national park objectives. I note that, in his opening remarks, Mark Ruskell has suggested that we should act to “actively further” the national park aims.

Could you give us an example of the kind of problem that you think might be created? We are looking for joined-up thinking that supports communities, individuals and our fantastic natural environment.

That is a really important issue. We do not want public bodies cutting across national park plans. We want the national park plans to reflect the views of other public bodies as well as those of the public. I agree with Mark Ruskell that it is critical to get that right in the wording of the bill. We need the engagement of the cabinet secretary to ensure that we get it right, given the evidence that the committee has considered over the past few weeks and months, which we cannot ignore.

I want to ask about vicarious liability and focus particularly on companies. The threshold for liability in the bill requires intent or recklessness for the main offence, and some of the evidence that the committee got suggested that that was too high a threshold, because of the difficulty of proving intent or recklessness and because, in reality, such offences, especially when committed by big companies, might be more likely to result from negligence or poor governance. I am thinking about work carried out by a company or a subcontracted company. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the appropriate threshold of liability for the main offence in the bill? Would a lower threshold be appropriate?