Seòmar agus comataidhean

NatureScot has questions about funding, and local authorities also raised concerns that they would not be likely to have the resources that they would need to engage in an ecocide investigation. Will you clarify or explain how the expansion of powers in section 9 relates to the existing regulatory remits of public bodies? As the member who is leading on the bill, which bodies do you think would be expected to lead on an ecocide investigation?

I just wanted to flag up that SEPA has raised concerns that the financial memorandum does not cover what it thinks the cost would be for it to proceed with an inquiry.

I move on to the financial memorandum and how the bill’s provisions would be implemented. SEPA has raised concerns that the financial memorandum underestimates the costs of implementation. NatureScot has said that, as things stand, it does not think that the extension of enforcement powers would apply to it, so it would need to work with SEPA.

There are a few questions about the detail of implementation. Have you thought through how the implementation costs would be met by the public sector organisations that would be required to implement the provisions?

Thank you. Back to the convener.

I want to follow up on EU alignment and discuss the issue of penalties. We took quite a lot of evidence from witnesses who had a range of different views about the exact detail of potential penalties. Some witnesses said in response to the call for views that the bill should go further in some areas, including in relation to penalties, by looking at what has been discussed in the environmental crime directive and looking beyond traditional types of penalties. Some issues that were considered included restricting a company’s operations, turnover-based fines and remediation orders.

I am keen to get your views on remediation orders, which is one issue that was discussed by witnesses. Having listened to, or seen in writing, the evidence that different witnesses gave, do you think that there is a case for expanding any of the penalty provisions in the bill?

Basically, you do not think that there is a need to reference remediation explicitly because it could be delivered through other elements of the bill if it was appropriate and possible. I just want to get that on the record.

What was appropriate at the time would depend on different cases in which legal proceedings were brought, but remediation is not excluded from the bill even though it is not explicitly referenced in it. Is that a correct interpretation?

No. It was just that one of the witnesses said that it is a curiosity that it is not specifically included in the bill. The issue is about explaining the options that come from the current legal provisions that are referred to in the bill.

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.