Chamber and committees

I think that I understand what you are trying to say, cabinet secretary. Even in my short time in Parliament, I have heard various ministers and cabinet secretaries say that an SSI is a strong starting point, but I agree with what the convener just said: the risk is that, once the instrument leaves the committee, it is really difficult for us, in the Parliament, to have a say on where it goes.

Quite a broad range of stakeholders have raised concerns about this. Although I accept that you are right about having a starting point, how can those stakeholders be made to feel comfortable? How can I be reassured that their views will be taken into account as soon as possible, so that the lists can be amended?

But that is aside from the fact that we have concerns in the committee.

Your response to the committee’s letter states that there is a plan to introduce a reporting mechanism for the have-regard duty and that that will be done by the good food nation team. How will that team oversee the duty? Will decision-making processes around the duty be publicly communicated to ensure transparency?

That is interesting. I agree with you about the venison market and the need to ensure that it is as strong as possible. However, what I am asking for is nothing that we have not done before. The minister, who has a similar background to mine, will remember that, when control of spraying was introduced to agriculture, grandfather rights were given to those who had been doing it for many years. All that I am asking for is a balanced approach for people have been shooting for many years. Edward Mountain might be one of those people.

That is true, but that is the important point. It is not ideal, but it is possible that that could happen without any parts of the 2022 act being broken. The 2022 act takes quite a novel approach; it is cross-cutting legislation. I sympathise with some of the points that have been made about the practicality of implementing the provisions across loads of Government departments in different ways. That said, however, we must take into account the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders.

Would it not be sensible, therefore, to get round the table with stakeholders and thrash this out? You could tell them all the stuff that you have told us this morning to get them on board and make sure that we are all heading in the same direction, rather than pulling in two directions.

I accept that, but the duty to have regard to the good food nation plan would not apply only for as long as it took you to relay the SSI. There might be a short period of time in which the final plan was in place but the duty to have regard to it did not apply, but as soon as you brought the SSI back, we approved it and it went through Parliament, that duty would kick in, would it not?

I now have to try to argue that my amendment is stronger—we will see how we get on.

Part 3 of the bill outlines the aims of national parks. My amendments 314 and 202, 203 and 204 seek to add further aims for national parks, focusing on “strengthening the local economy”. For me, the bill’s proposed changes fail to take the opportunity to deal with issues that really affect rural Scotland, such as housing and the local economy. There seems to be a focus on priorities such as tourism and visitor access over issues such as local farming businesses, to the detriment of the rural economy and the natural environment.

Food production and farming are core to Scotland’s rural economy. They are also key drivers of the local community and landscape management. My amendments 314, 202, 203 and 204 seek to address some of the issues by strengthening the local economy. I would be happy to work with the cabinet secretary prior to stage 3 to get that point across in the amendments.

My amendment 315 works alongside my amendments 317, 318, 319 and 201, which, together, would remove almost all of part 3. Part 3 makes various amendments to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Stakeholders have said that part 3 of the bill does very little. The proposed new section 1 of the 2000 act introduces some new language that, at best, is clarifying. The so-called reform of the national park aims also makes very limited change.

I have already mentioned key local concerns around housing and the local economy. Importantly, the Government has not taken the opportunity to establish a review of the existing national parks. The parks have been in existence for some time, and it is fair to say that many have raised concerns. A review would allow a full understanding of how the parks have performed, what value they bring to the taxpayer and how we can ensure that they work for the people who live in them and the country. With that in mind, I cannot support making changes to national parks without having that full picture of how they have been working.

My amendment 316 seeks to add a new section to the bill, after section 5, to require a policy statement on national parks. The amendment would require Scottish ministers to publish and review at least every 10 years a Scottish national parks policy statement to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. The policy statement should set out broad policy direction in relation to national parks, including a vision and the outcomes that are sought. The framework would ensure transparency and require consideration of local support and public engagement.

My amendments 209 and 211 seek to reverse the change that the bill will make to how the national parks and other bodies are to interact with national park plans. Currently, under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, bodies are required to “have regard to” the plans. My amendments seek to maintain proportionality and flexibility in public bodies’ obligations by continuing to require them to “have regard to”, rather than “facilitate”, national park plans.

I seek to ensure that there will be evidence-based policy development through an independent review of existing national parks before any new designation is made, and that review would be established via my amendment 214. The amendment seeks to add a section to require a review of the effectiveness of the existing national parks to be carried out before any designation is made for the creation of any new national park.

Will the minister take an intervention?

True.

I do agree with that. In some ways, that is what I wanted to probe the minister on. I think that I will still move my amendment, but I will discuss the matter with the minister separately, too. The crux of the issue is that there is a lot of wording and new stuff coming forward that stakeholders are really concerned about. This is about making sure that the triangular relationship between the Government, NatureScot—as the regulator—and the stakeholders works in practice. I imagine that we will come back to that as we move forward.

I will turn to my amendment 223. The bill sets out changes to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, including grounds for intervention relating to damage by deer. It sets out the conditions that NatureScot will have to believe are satisfied before intervention can take place. It then uses the wording

“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land”.

My amendment 223 seeks to change “in relation to” to “on”. At the moment, the bill uses both terms. I believe that my amendment would introduce better consistency to the drafting of the bill and that use of the word “on” would narrow the reference.

My amendment 224 is similar to amendment 223. It seeks to introduce better consistency to the bill.

My amendment 330 is consequential to my amendments 223 and 224.

Section 13 of the bill adds to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 grounds for intervention due to nature restoration. It states:

“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land, deer or steps taken or not taken ... are likely to, prevent or reduce the effectiveness of work, a project or natural process”.

My amendment 226 seeks to delete

“, a project or natural process”

and replace it with the words “or project”. As far as I am aware, “natural process” has not been defined in previous legislation, and I therefore do not believe that it would add anything beyond what would already be covered under “work or project”. Again, I am trying to make sense of the wording for practical application of the law.

My amendment 227 is a consequential to my amendment 228.

As I have mentioned, section 13 of the bill adds to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 grounds for intervention due to nature restoration. More fully, it states:

“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land, deer or steps taken or not taken for the purposes of deer management are, or are likely to, prevent or reduce the effectiveness of work, a project or natural process that ... preserves, protects, restores, enhances or otherwise improves the natural heritage or environment”.

My amendment 228 seeks to replace “enhances or otherwise improves” with the words “and enhances”. I am concerned that allowing intervention on the basis of improving the natural heritage or environment is problematic as there is no clear baseline against which such improvements can be measured. Removing the phrase “or otherwise improves” would ensure that deer management remained aligned with the established purposes of preserving, protecting, restoring and enhancing the environment, while avoiding ambiguity over what constitutes environmental improvement.