���˿���

That presumes that we could take it away and do that work before the end of the parliamentary session. I do not think that that is a given, due to the amount of legislation that we have to deal with.

I stress once more that there has been a lot of on-going dialogue. I acknowledge the concerns that stakeholders expressed during the consultation and engagement, but we would not be able to satisfy some of those concerns, because doing so in some areas would require there to be a far broader duty, which could mean that the implementation of the have-regard duty would have less effect.

I believe that we have struck the right balance, and I hope that the committee feels that it is able to support the regulations today. Of course, we welcome any scrutiny and any recommendations on how we can build on the instrument, but I am concerned about the gap that could exist. I think that we have a strong foundation to build on, and we can only look to improve it.

There are a number of amendments in the group, and I will work through them as best I can.

Although I understand the rationale for Ross Greer’s amendment 201, I believe that its aim is already covered by the first aim, which is

“to conserve and enhance the area’s natural and cultural heritage”.

There is also an issue with the amendment’s use of the term “landscapes”, because it is a subjective concept that does not have a legal definition in Scotland. If we introduced an undefined term to the national park aims, it could lead to uncertainty for decision makers in the parks. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 201.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 202 to 204 and 314 relate to the promotion of employment, job creation, business development, sustainable development, the availability of affordable housing and the strengthening of the economy in our national parks, and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 122 relates to similar areas. Those are really important elements of ensuring that we have thriving communities in our national parks. I think that they are already encapsulated in the fourth aim, which is

“to promote sustainable economic, social and cultural development of the area’s communities”,

but I understand why Tim Eagle and Sarah Boyack seek to modify proposed new section 1(2) of the 2000 act, which elaborates on the aims. If they are content not to press their amendments today, I will be happy to work with them both ahead of stage 3.

My amendment 61 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 123 are very similar in nature. They relate to the final provision in proposed new section 1(2) of the 2000 act, which elaborates on the aims. I have listened to the views of stakeholders who questioned the way that the provision has been drafted, particularly the reference to the “prosperity of individuals”. My amendment 61 clarifies that the policy intention is to promote people’s health and wellbeing and community prosperity. Given that the wording in my amendment will ensure that the health and wellbeing of individuals is still included in the aims and that the amendment has been drafted in keeping with the language that is used throughout the bill, I ask the committee to support my amendment 61 and I ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendment 123.

The purpose of my amendment 63, which is a minor consequential amendment, is to provide consistency between paragraph 3 of schedule 3 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and amended section 5(2) of that act. I hope that members will support it.

As Tim Eagle outlined, his amendments 315 and 317 to 320 collectively seek to remove part 3 from the bill, so I ask members not to support those amendments.

I now turn to amendments 62 and 124. Through the new duty in section 5 of the bill, public bodies will be required to “have regard to” the national park aims when exercising functions that affect a national park. However, it is recognised that public bodies will need to balance those aims with their other statutory duties and considerations. We consulted widely on the “have regard to” duty, and respondents to the consultation were supportive of the proposal that we put forward. My concern is that, if amendments 62 and 124 strengthened the duties so that public bodies that operate in national park areas were required to “seek to further” or “actively further” the national park aims, there is a risk that that would affect how public bodies balanced consideration of the national park aims with their other statutory duties and considerations. That could open the bodies up to legal challenge when they are trying to fulfil their statutory responsibilities. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments, and I also ask members not to support them.

I absolutely agree with that. I will have to follow up with a specific example of what that could look like. We have tried to strike the right balance in the wording that we have proposed, which is based on consultation that received a lot of support. We want to ensure that there is no potential for legal risk further down the line.

Again, all that that would do is add more pressure to the way that the system is handled. Potentially, those addresses would still be centrally monitored, which would mean that, whoever was monitoring them would have to monitor 17 different accounts in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, for example, and then pass emails on to members, rather than monitoring one account. That would be unwieldy and an inefficient use of resources.

I have not heard from the boards that they would seek to have that arrangement. I believe that the parks are broadly content with how correspondence is managed at the moment. They might still consider handling those accounts in the same way, which would be unwieldy. I can only reiterate my points on that.

Amendments 126 and 127, in the name of Sarah Boyack, seek to insert a definition of cultural development into the 2000 act. If a definition of cultural development is to be included, it is important that we get the drafting right, to avoid unintended consequences. I would just like a bit more time to consider that; but, to be clear, I agree with what Sarah Boyack is trying to do. I would be happy to work with her on the definition ahead of stage 3, so that it is clear and comprehensive. Therefore, I ask her not to move her amendments today, to allow that conversation to take place.

Amendments 128 and 316 seek a national parks policy statement. Having reflected on the recent process that we have been through to look at the proposal for a new national park, I appreciate that some people said that they would have found it helpful to have a clear understanding of the Scottish Government’s vision for national parks and the role that they play. I have concerns about the resource implications of Sarah Boyack’s amendment 128 and cannot support it on that basis, but I am happy to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 316.

I understand the rationale for amendment 129, in the name of Sarah Boyack. During the recent consultation process on the designation of a new national park, some parties said that they would have liked greater clarity on what national park designation would mean in practice. A major concern about amendment 129 is that a blueprint for a new national park, including the boundary, functions and governance structure, would have to be presented without the benefit of consultation and co-design with local communities and stakeholders. Many people would be likely to criticise the Scottish Government for imposing what would then be considered to be its view of a national park on their area without proper consultation. If Sarah Boyack is willing not to move her amendment today, I am willing to work with her ahead of stage 3 to discuss a possible alternative, such as a requirement for ministers to seek expert advice on the rationale for designating a national park in an area before a formal proposal is made by ministers. On that basis, I hope that Sarah Boyack is content not to move amendment 129, to allow time for that conversation to take place.

Amendment 66 modifies the fixed penalty notice provisions in the bill to include the ability to confer powers to enter the land for, or in connection with, the issuing of fixed-penalty notices. I ask the committee to support amendment 66.

Ross Greer’s amendments 212 and 213 also seek to modify the fixed-penalty notice provisions. I have sympathy for Ross Greer’s rationale for these amendments, but I do not think that the provision that they would make is necessary, because proposed new section 26A of the 2000 act already provides for the amount of the fixed penalty to be discounted or increased by an amount or a percentage in circumstances specified by the regulations. I agree that repeat offenders should be dealt with more severely, but, in some cases, a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service would be the most appropriate next step. It is also worth noting that ministers will be required to consult stakeholders and interested parties before making the regulations that set out the detailed regime. For those reasons, I hope that Mark Ruskell, on behalf of Ross Greer, will not press amendments 212 and 213.

On amendments 27 and 214, from Mark Ruskell and Tim Eagle respectively, I appreciate that some members have called for a review of national parks, following the recent process in Galloway and Ayrshire, and I have therefore given these amendments very careful consideration. Amendment 27, in the name of Mark Ruskell, would place a duty on ministers to prepare a report on the benefits of expanding the existing national parks. Again, that has not been raised with me or put forward for ministers to consider. A report of that kind would require significant time and resource from the Scottish Government, the two national park authorities and other public bodies and organisations operating in the area. The preparation of a report within 12 months of the bill’s achieving royal assent would also be extremely difficult to achieve, given the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary election and the time that would be required to consult local communities and businesses. The requirement for the report to assess the potential impact of expanding the boundaries of the existing parks on meeting the biodiversity targets proposed in the bill does not seem realistic, given that the bill provides a framework for targets and the actual targets are not known at this stage. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 27.

I do not believe so. First, that will be the key strategic document. Given section 2 of the 2024 act, what the rural support plan has to give consideration to and set out is, I believe, quite comprehensive. It is also important that, in its development, that key strategic document is judged and assessed against, and has regard to, the good food nation plan and the outcomes. That means that it is built into the development of the areas that the rural support plan has to cover.

An important point is that if, in our development of policy in those areas, it is apparent that there is a gap, we will look to pick that up through our monitoring. It is in nobody’s interest for there to be any key missing areas in the legislation, so the monitoring and how we assess impact will be important.

As I have talked about, the monitoring and how we look at that will be critical to ensuring that the have-regard duty has effect in the way that is intended. I will hand over to officials, who will be able to say a bit more about that. Through the development of the SSI and the plan, there has been key working across Government to build relationships with different policy teams. That is how the schedules of functions and descriptions have been collated, which I think has already developed that wider understanding.

I do not know whether Tracy McCollin wants to say a bit more about the monitoring work—which will, I hope, provide more reassurance on that front.

I expect us to have a close working relationship with the Scottish Food Commission, because, given its role in scrutinising the plan, it makes absolute sense for us to have that. The commission is independent and can look at its own work, but I expect to have close engagement and discussion.

Ashley Cooke wants to come in at this point.

Yes, absolutely. As Ash Cooke outlined, there will be engagement throughout.

This is not a case of the plan being published and that being it. So much work will continue in the background and so many pieces of work are on-going. We are already looking ahead to future iterations of the plan and to reporting and reviews. The plan is the starting point for a new area, but there will be engagement and we will work closely with the Scottish Food Commission when we get any recommendations from it.

Its duties do not specifically relate to that area, but Tracy McCollin outlined the monitoring work that we will do to ensure that we are capturing some of those duties.

If we look ahead to the next few months and the amount of legislation that Parliament will be dealing with, we can see that there is a risk that we might miss some duties that we might need to bring back or to consider in the future. That is why the specified descriptions are important, because they are broader, all-encompassing areas, which means that any legislation would also be covered by the broad descriptions set out in that list. We will keep a close eye on that to ensure that we capture any new duties or powers.