Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was very well put. It cuts both ways: the park plans need to reflect the wider public objectives that public authorities are working towards, but they also need to reflect the views of communities, as well as considering the biodiversity targets that will be set under part 1 of the bill.

I will leave my comments there. I hope that we can get into some meaningful discussions with you, cabinet secretary, and that we can come to stage 3 with a tighter grouping of amendments that drills down into what we can do now. Perhaps we can have conversations with you about what happens after the national parks designation process. Where do we take the aspirations of communities, and where do we take the debates? If it is not in part 3 of the bill, where should it be for the next Scottish Government and for the local authorities, which have invested a lot of time and effort in getting the debate about national parks going? They have nowhere to go with that now, to the point that it is not showing up in your inbox, apparently. There is nowhere to take it now, and that is a shame, because national parks are working and are achieving things. We need a clear vision of where they will go in the future.

I will end there, and I will press amendment 201.

Gosh, that got interesting. Amendment 28 would allow ministers to transfer NatureScot’s deer function to another public body that might be better equipped in the future to discharge those duties. Other public bodies currently in existence, such as Forestry and Land Scotland, already have significant engagement with sustainable deer management over a large part of Scotland. The intention of the amendment is not to transfer those duties right now, but to future proof the governance of deer management in Scotland by providing the minister with that flexibility in the future. That is all that I have to say.

I am very sympathetic to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment, as I face the daily challenge of looking to see where a deer is going to head out of the forest next when I am driving home, but I am wondering where local deer management groups and NatureScot would sit under her proposed approach. I could see a conversation taking place between BEAR Scotland and local authorities, but I am interested in where the provision of advice around wider deer management would come in and how we could knit all that together. Putting up signs is one thing, but measures such as fencing, which Mr Mountain suggested, culling in particular areas and the management of deer throughout the year are more technical; they are more about land managers and the wider efforts to manage deer populations in an area.

The bill largely fixes what has been, up to this point, a pretty broken system of voluntary control, and that is good. However, it strikes me that there will still be a limited number of urgent circumstances in which NatureScot will need the ability to immediately control deer in order to protect nature and the public interest. In those quite limited circumstances, going through what could be quite a protracted section 7 voluntary control agreement process might take too long to prevent damage to a site. Let us imagine a situation where a particular species was found and the deer were causing damage—it would be too late to go through that kind of process in order to protect that feature of interest.

Amendments 29 and 30 would allow NatureScot to undertake deer control with the necessary speed, allowing it to undertake control measures directly or through its contractors without first agreeing voluntary intervention with the landowner. Although it would be the exception to normal practice, it is important to empower NatureScot by defining clear and specific scenarios where it might need to intervene, which would help to avoid prolonged delays or loopholes that allow persistent inaction.

I turn to amendment 246, which would require ministers to implement

“a national deer management programme”.

Specifically, it would require ministers to publish a national strategy, identify priority areas, set clear expectations for landowners and provide strategic direction for sustainable deer management. That was one of the independent deer working group’s key recommendations, and the Government accepted it. The convener might remember that it was also a recommendation of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in the previous parliamentary session, which the convener was deputy convener of, and of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in session 4—we are delving into the annals of the Scottish Parliament here. The recommendation has been there for a very long time and it really needs action.

The proposed national deer management programme that amendment 246 sets out is effectively a modernised form of cull approval scheme. It is in line with what is in the most recent programme for government, which committed to having sustainable deer management pilots that would then be rolled out on a national scale. I think that amendment 246 would achieve that.

I have been listening carefully to the minister’s comments on amendment 333. You say that we do not need to legislate for what it is proposing, but would it not deliver some certainty about the direction of travel, given the need to build the venison market and ensure that there are effective groups across Scotland that are realising the advantages of effective deer management? Would an amendment such as amendment 333 not underline the importance of where the Government is moving towards and help to create certainty that there will be investment going forward?

The whole Parliament is currently considering a draft climate change plan. It seems odd that ministers will not have regard to climate change or social security under the SSI that is before us. I wonder why there are such big omissions at this point. If the whole point is to have policy coherence and draw all the important threads together, now is surely the time, particularly with regard to climate change, when we should be considering what a good food nation is. Ministers should be thinking across portfolios in such areas. I am not sure why there are such big omissions at this point.

If the schedules were updated at some point in the future, including under a future Government, would they potentially include climate change and social security, or is it job done for those areas?

As members know, I am standing in for Ariane Burgess, so I will speak to her amendments, Ross Greer’s amendments—because he is at the Education, Children and Young People Committee—and my amendments. I will try to get through them succinctly.

Amendment 201, in the name of Ross Greer, would specify

“protecting and enhancing the special quality of the area’s landscapes”

as one of the national park sub-aims. The bill will remove the term “special qualities” from the third aim in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Amendment 201 is intended to add balance back into the aims, recognising the importance of landscape and visual impacts. The amendment is backed by Action to Protect Rural Scotland and the Scottish Campaign for National Parks. It builds on the Scottish Government’s work to recognise and promote special landscapes.

Amendment 206 would extend the Sandford principle beyond national park authorities and apply it to other public bodies. Currently, under the Sandford principle, a national park authority must prioritise nature conservation when it comes into conflict with other subordinate national park aims. That is an important principle that delivers conservation.

The bill as introduced imposes a duty on ministers, councils and other public bodies to

“have regard to the National Park aims”,

so it is a logical extension that, when we impose that duty, we also extend the prioritisation of the aims within the Sandford principle. For example, it would make no sense if a planning decision was considered by a park authority and refused on the basis of the Sandford principle—if, in other words, priority was given to conservation above other interests—but that ministers, when considering a planning appeal, did not also have to have regard to nature as the top priority.

Amendment 207 would require a public hearing when a planning application in a national park is appealed. That reflects the special nature of planning decisions in national parks, with hearings acting as an opportunity for ministers and reporters to hear directly from experts. They could be local residents who are experts in the national park, as well as subject-specific experts who can advise on the potential impact of development proposals.

Amendment 208 would require national park board members to have “public-facing contact information”. That is a small step, but it would improve transparency and trust in national parks. It is odd that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority is the only planning authority anywhere in the UK where members, including those who have been directly elected, are not directly contactable by those they represent.

As a matter of good governance, it should be possible for people to be able to contact board members directly without authority staff acting as a filter. There might be issues that are directly related to the staff, about which residents would need to get in touch directly with board members to raise a concern. I live in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. It seems odd that, a couple of years ago, I was asked to vote to elect my directly elected board member for the local area but their contact details are not available if I want to make a representation to them.

Amendments 212 and 213 seek to impose a multiplier regime for fixed-penalty notices that are issued for byelaw violations in national parks, reflecting that repeated offences ought to carry increased penalties. That is in line with other multiplier fining regimes that we have in low-emission zones, for example.

I will move on to my amendments in the group. The introduction of the proposed new duty in section 5 relating to national park aims is welcome. However, the form of words that is proposed is “have regard to”. Amendment 62 would strengthen the duty on ministers, park authorities and public bodies so that they would have to “actively further” national park aims, which is a more action-focused form of words. There would be an active duty on public bodies to take all reasonable steps to further national park aims. That underlines the importance of avoiding harm, which is a statutory aim of the national parks, and of seeking to further conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage of an area. A stronger duty could help to improve progress in delivering the aims and help to deliver new statutory biodiversity targets.

National parks have a major role to play in addressing the climate and nature crises. It has been suggested by stakeholders that any area that is proposed as a new national park should demonstrate how the designation would contribute to meeting nature recovery or climate targets. Amendment 64 proposes to do that by adding a new fourth condition for designating a national park area.

Amendment 65 would specify the nature and role of the reporter for a new national park proposal. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 sets out that the reporter is a role for NatureScot, but ministers should have the flexibility to appoint whichever person or body they believe to be the most appropriate. It might be appropriate to choose a reporter who is skilled in conducting inquiries and public processes, with NatureScot taking a slightly different role. For example, it could feed in its expertise on the natural environment at an earlier stage when the proposals are being drawn up, rather than being the reporter, which would allow NatureScot to promote its expert view on nature conservation, access and landscape and, if appropriate, to support the benefits of a national park in a specific area during the debate with local communities. NatureScot could become a statutory consultee should ministers see fit.

Whichever body or individual takes on the reporting role, the 2000 act currently sets out procedures but very few exceptions as to how a reporter should conduct its work. Reporters should be required to produce recommendations independently, and those recommendations should be evidence based and developed for the benefits of the people of Scotland, both current and future generations.

Amendment 27 would require ministers to review the potential of expanding the boundaries of the two existing national parks. The current boundaries of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park arguably do not follow the natural geography of the surrounding areas and landscapes. Loch Tay and Loch Earn are bisected by park boundaries that follow old council lines. National scenic area landscape protections around Strathearn sit outside the park, and the park board has no responsibility for planning decisions. It seems odd that towns such as Comrie and Kenmore are not gateways to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs park from the east. A boundary review would provide an opportunity to build on the success of our two existing national parks and to see whether there are opportunities to expand them.

I move amendment 201.

These are not new issues. The cabinet secretary might recall that there was much debate about setting the boundary of the Cairngorms national park. In fact, John Swinney had to introduce a member’s bill to change the boundary. In the recent campaigns and public consultation around the designation of a new national park in Scotland, there was considerable interest in, public support for and engagement on a Tay forest national park, which would, in effect, by default, have expanded the coverage of national parks in Highland Perthshire. The essence of expanding what national parks do in Perthshire has been consulted on, there is considerable public support for it, and there is an appetite for considering it. If that is not done through this amendment or by putting something in the bill, how would the cabinet secretary see the public interest continuing and, if there is support for it, potentially leading to a boundary change in the future?

This is a huge group of amendments that cover so many different issues, and it is very difficult to unpack them all in a single debate. Sarah Boyack perhaps summed it up when she said that we need to learn lessons and look to the future.

There are a number of strands here. There are the learnings around the recent designation—or lack of designation—of Galloway national park, and there are learnings around the debacle over the Loch Lomond Flamingo Land application. There are serious concerns that the national park plan has been undermined, and there is a lot of learning there about the primacy of the park plan and the accessibility of park board members.

That is just one area of consideration. There is also a debate about landscape, and there is a debate around the purpose of national parks. Cabinet secretary, you have made a number of commitments to a number of members to have further conversations between stage 2 and stage 3. The conversation around the primacy of park plans, ensuring that all public authorities do not dismiss the park plans but work to further the aims of the parks and the aspirations in the plans, is a really important one. The committee has had evidence that there are public authorities, including Forestry and Land Scotland, that have—in some cases—actively undermined some of the objectives of park plans. On Flamingo Land, there are learnings about the role of Scottish Enterprise in relation to the promotion of a site for a development that was hugely unpopular and was in contravention of the park plan.

Within the nugget of some of the amendments in this group, there is concern about democracy and about the accessibility of park authorities. There is also a desire for the democratically agreed park plan to be delivered, with everybody pulling in the same direction. I hope that, if we can take some of the essence of those concerns into conversations with you between stage 2 and stage 3, cabinet secretary, we can find a form of words that reflects the aspirations of the communities.