Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suppose that the question is whether that is working right now. I think that a £10 million lottery bid is going in for a landscape-scale restoration project where I stay in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, for example, so good things are happening, but some private landowners have not bought into that and there is potentially some conflict with the objectives of public agencies as well.

I am thinking back to where the primacy of the park plan sits in the bill and to whether more reforms could be brought in to strengthen that primacy. For example, is it right that a major development—there is obviously a lot of controversy about the Lomond Banks proposal at the moment—would not automatically go to a public inquiry if it were contrary to the park plan? Where does the park plan sit in relation to such developments?

On another day in this room, we have been considering the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and the provisions in it for land management plans. How do you see land management plans reflecting the vision of the park and the park plans?

On the process, do you think that there should be a firmer vision of the proposed national park at the point at which ministers formally propose it? That is a bit ambiguous under the legislation. There was an attempt to get the discussion going locally—from the bottom up and led by local people. Has that worked? Would it not be better, in a way, to have a much clearer vision at the point of proposing the park? The 2000 act does not explicitly require that.

Yes—that is difficult. You are asking people whether they want a national park, but when people ask, “What is it?” you are saying, “Well, you decide.” It is a tricky one.

Another point has been raised with me about guidance and how a suggested area has to meet the criteria under the 2000 act. Does there need to be a bit more guidance on that?

It sounds like there will be no more national parks for Scotland for the foreseeable future, at a time when lots of national park proposals are being developed in England and elsewhere.

It came up in the discussions around the Tay forest bid, because the boundaries of that park would be contiguous with the existing two national parks. There are communities that perhaps have a better understanding of what a national park looks like, because they can look to their neighbours and see exactly what is happening. Would you be open to a conversation around that if, say, Perth and Kinross Council or others came forward and said, “Look, there is a case now to adjust the boundaries in some way”?

I have a quick reflection. Do you agree that, where a larger estate has to produce a land management plan, surrounding smaller landholdings—farmers, typically—would benefit? They would not have to produce a land management plan, but the transparency of a nearby estate would be there, so they could see more clearly the future for the area and how they might fit into that.

Do you not think that the requirement for transparency and to have a discussion with bigger landholders would benefit smaller landholders such as yourself or the convener? Clearly, your land would not be captured by the 1,000 hectare threshold currently set by the bill.

Just to be clear, cabinet secretary, will the kind of detail on ecological restoration that I laid out earlier be expected to be in a land management plan, as appropriate to the holding?

I will speak to amendments 53 to 56, in the name of Ariane Burgess, and to my amendments 412, 413 and 97A. I will briefly mention other amendments in the group, too.

In relation to amendment 53, the community engagement obligations in the bill are important, and we need to have appropriate routes for any breaches of those obligations to be reported to the land and communities commissioner, who can then take appropriate action. As introduced, the bill allows only local authorities, Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NatureScot and community bodies—as defined in the community right to buy legislation—to report breaches. It is right that there are some limits on who can submit a statutory report of a breach in order to ensure that the land and communities commissioner does not need to investigate vexatious or spurious complaints. However, additional bodies should have the ability to report a breach. Amendments 53 to 56 would allow community councils, the Crofting Commission, the enterprise agencies and national park authorities to report a breach. I therefore ask the committee to accept those amendments.

Amendments 412 and 413 seek to ensure that there is cross-compliance on entitlements to public subsidies where a landowner breaches their obligations under this legislation. That would ensure that a landowner who is in breach and is being fined by the state cannot simultaneously access public money for other land management or land use.

Okay.