Like colleagues, I reflect that we will be here for some time. I have lodged my amendments 65, 67, 68 and 69, in this group, to ensure that the Scottish Government will follow through on the original aims of the bill and meet the targets that have been set out. I thank Scottish Environment LINK and the Marine Conservation Society for their continued support in crafting and engaging on those amendments.

Many of Scotland’s protected sites, particularly marine protected areas, remain in unfavourable condition. Without an explicit target in relation to them, there is a risk that their restoration will be overshadowed by broader or more achievable biodiversity gains elsewhere. I want to enable the Parliament to come back and focus on that issue again.

It has been argued that targets relating to protected sites could be set under the existing target topics of habitat condition or extent, but there is no requirement that protected areas will be prioritised, and no timescale is provided for setting such a target. That is why I lodged amendment 65.

My other amendments in the group would ensure that there are no delays in those targets being met. Scotland has committed to halting nature loss by 2030. Without a deadline, there is no guarantee that targets will be introduced in time to influence early delivery of that commitment. Without explicit timelines in legislation, we need to know what the Scottish Government will do to ensure timely implementation of the bill.

I argue that those are not huge asks of my colleagues. They will make improvement of protected sites a clear statutory priority, increase transparency and accountability, align the bill with Scotland’s European Union-derived and international nature commitments, and strengthen protection for MPAs across environmental legislation.

I say to the cabinet secretary and her colleagues that the engagement of stakeholders has been incredibly strong, even between stage 2 and today’s debate. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect and act on this matter constructively, and that is why I ask my colleagues for their support on these amendments. This issue needs to be centre stage.

I have five amendments in the group. I feel strongly that they should be agreed to, because they will give us our chance to improve and strengthen our national parks for the long term.

It is appropriate that we are debating amendments in this group today. I am proud to have been the cabinet secretary to introduce the legislation on the establishment of our first two national parks, in the first session of the Parliament. Things have moved on since then, and it is important that we take the opportunities presented by the bill to bring legislation on the parks up to speed. My amendment 72 would amend the national park aims to ensure that sustainable development, community prosperity, health and wellbeing, and the provision of housing for people who live and work in our national parks are all recognised as being part of those aims.

It is essential that national park authorities and other public bodies support the vibrant communities at the heart of our national parks, because the parks are not only areas of outstanding beauty but areas where people work and build their lives. At present, the national parks legislation does not specifically require ministers to seek expert advice on the rationale for national park designations before formally proposing a new national park. Many of us would have loved to see a third national park being introduced in Scotland, but lessons need to be learned.

I thank the cabinet secretary and her staff for their support in drafting my proposed amendments 73, 74 and 75, which I think will strengthen the legislation. Amendment 73 attempts to introduce a new requirement for ministers to seek advice from those whom they consider to have expertise relevant to the national park aims before making a national park proposal.

That would be good, because it would strengthen the proposals that a future Government could make. It would ensure that expert advice on the management needs of an area and how national park designation could help to address those needs was provided to ministers and would have to be considered before deciding whether to propose a new national park. It would also ensure that people had clear information about the rationale for establishing a national park, and it would help to inform people about what designation would mean in practice for local communities, businesses and the natural environment.

Currently, there is no definition of “cultural development” in the national parks legislation, so it is important that we address that, given that cultural development is now referenced in the national park aims. My amendments 74 and 75 attempt to do that by giving us a clear definition of cultural development, ensuring that

“the arts, tangible and intangible cultural heritage, creative industries, and activities which reflect”

the fantastic diversity and distinctiveness of an area that is being designated, and its communities, are all encompassed in the definition. The definition that is proposed in my amendment also takes into account Scotland’s culture strategy and related policy statements.

Lastly, I am pushing the provisions of amendment 77 again. I raised them at stage 2. I think that clearer and simpler language about the duty to implement the park plans would underline the primacy of those park plans, which are developed through engagement with the public and with ministerial sign-off. That strengthened duty would help to ensure that the work of the public sector is more strategically aligned.

Taken together, the changes that I am proposing will embed sustainability, community benefit, cultural recognition and accountability at the heart of Scotland’s national parks, creating a more robust, transparent and socially grounded framework for their future management and designation, learning lessons from the two decades since we started discussing national parks and actually having them in Scotland.

This has been a long journey. I thank the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, the clerks and all the stakeholders who contributed to the consultation that the committee conducted in advance of today’s debate. I also thank those who have worked with me over the past few years to enable me to get to this point, and the fantastic non-Government bills unit team, without whose support I would not be here today.

I started work on my bill in 2021. Support for legislation on wellbeing and sustainable development, with clear definitions, a public duty and a commissioner who could deliver accountability, guidance and advice and hold the Government and public sector bodies to account was included not only in the Scottish Labour manifesto; other parties signed up to a wellbeing and sustainable development bill, too.

I held several round-table sessions with key stakeholders to ensure that I understood their views. In response to my consultation, there was overwhelmingly positive support for a public duty, a clear definition and the establishment of a commissioner who could provide advice and guidance and who, critically, would have investigatory powers, the need for which is referenced in the committee’s report.

When the Scottish Government announced its intention to lodge a bill of its own and initiated its consultation, I was disappointed, because I thought that if the Scottish Government progressed its bill, my bill would have to fall. However, I remembered the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the fact that I was able to persuade the then Deputy First Minister to include the proposal in my draft member’s bill that all new housing developments would have to include some form of renewables. That was successful.

I also thought that I would be able to feed in the incredibly valuable insights on issues that people had raised with me, such as procurement, which was not covered in my draft bill, and how to achieve a joined-up approach that would link wellbeing and sustainable development directly to the national performance framework, on which the Government could be held to account to ensure that it was effectively implemented. I also wanted clarity to be provided on the definitions of wellbeing and sustainable development, which are mentioned in a number of pieces of legislation.

If it is brief. Will I get the time back?

I thank the member for that acknowledgement. It is definitely a practical way to create jobs, lower bills and deliver on climate ambitions.

What I was going to say was that I did not anticipate the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-appointed commissioners review and the conclusions that it came to. I have been absolutely clear from the start that my proposals for a commissioner were not about appointing an advocacy commissioner. In the responses to my consultation and to that of the Scottish Government, there was strong support for having someone who is independent, who can provide guidance to help to implement wellbeing and sustainable development principles and, crucially, who will have the investigatory powers that would be used to hold public sector bodies to account. In the view of many stakeholders, our Parliament needs the capacity to make sure that that happens.

The work of our committees is vital, but colleagues need to reflect on the challenge that we face in the capacity of our committees to carry out the work that was called for in the 2021 election. It also begs the question whether the Scottish Government has been performing that oversight role effectively to date, especially given the failure of the national performance framework to deliver as intended.

The sustainable development goals are meant to be delivered by 2030. There is a real danger that short-termism and the lack of the joined-up thinking that is needed to push wellbeing and sustainable development up the agenda will mean that we miss out on the investment that we need to make now to support future generations. We have the experience of Wales, where the legislation was passed a decade ago and which is now being served by its second future generations commissioner. It is inspiring to hear about the success of its work, the culture shift that it has delivered and its five ways of working.

When the Scottish Government decided not to proceed with its bill, although I was absolutely delighted that the Deputy First Minister said that she would be prepared to work with me constructively on my bill, I did not anticipate that the minister would say that he was not going to support it. I was deeply disappointed by that. We are here today after the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s extensive consideration of the proposals in my bill. Notwithstanding my disappointment, there are some incredibly helpful recommendations in its report, and I hope that the Scottish Government will respond to them positively and with clarity.

The committee recognises the importance of policy coherence, and my view is that guidance is needed to embed wellbeing and sustainable development in policy making. The committee also questions the Scottish Government on oversight and the measurement of the implementation of national outcomes. I thought that it was significant that the committee specifically asked the Scottish Government to clarify, if there was not to be a commissioner, who would provide guidance, support and oversight, but there was no clear answer in the minister’s response to the committee.

The committee noted the evidence that, in the absence of clear statutory directives linked to a shared long-term national vision, there is no accountability. If the Scottish Government will not back my bill, will it consider strengthening the duties in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015?

As Carnegie UK also stressed, a point was raised in extensive evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee about the need to reform the national performance framework so that it works. Will the Scottish Government commit to that, as well as to the committee’s recommendation that it should set a time period to evaluate the impact of a revised national performance framework on the delivery of wellbeing and sustainable development outcomes? The national performance framework is being reviewed, so we do not have the answers in front of us.

I hope that the issues raised in the committee report, which the Scottish Government has not yet given clear commitments to act on, will be reflected in the legacy papers that committees prepare in the final few weeks of the current parliamentary session. What can be done now, without waiting for future legislation? Which committee in the next session of Parliament will be responsible for delivering the wellbeing and sustainable development goals? How will the SPCB deliver the accountability and oversight that we have, for years, consulted on, supported and campaigned for? We urgently need answers to those questions, because we cannot let Scotland fall behind.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill.

14:34

Does the member accept that it would be possible to establish memorandums of understanding with existing commissioners so that there is no overlap? For example, I discussed with the Auditor General that overlap and a waste of public money can be avoided by having constructive conversations at the start, just as took place in the case of the Welsh commissioner.

Will the reformed national performance framework enable measurement against national outcomes, wellbeing principles and sustainable development goals? Will it include best-value audits so that there are ways to monitor implementation and ensure that the reformed NPF does not fail as the previous one has failed?

Stakeholders have made some helpful, proportionate and well-crafted comments about the issue of procurement. There is the capacity to amend the bill as it goes from stage 1 to stages 2 and 3. I am keen to engage with stakeholders between stages 1 and 2 because I think that we could resolve some of those issues. Does the member agree?

Will the member take an intervention?

Does the member agree that additional resources would be required? If he read the evidence from Audit Scotland, he will remember that it said that having extra duties to implement some of the measures in my bill would require more resources and could divert Audit Scotland from its existing work.