Chamber and committees

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.

Could you give us an example of the kind of problem that you think might be created? We are looking for joined-up thinking that supports communities, individuals and our fantastic natural environment.

That is a really important issue. We do not want public bodies cutting across national park plans. We want the national park plans to reflect the views of other public bodies as well as those of the public. I agree with Mark Ruskell that it is critical to get that right in the wording of the bill. We need the engagement of the cabinet secretary to ensure that we get it right, given the evidence that the committee has considered over the past few weeks and months, which we cannot ignore.

I want to ask about vicarious liability and focus particularly on companies. The threshold for liability in the bill requires intent or recklessness for the main offence, and some of the evidence that the committee got suggested that that was too high a threshold, because of the difficulty of proving intent or recklessness and because, in reality, such offences, especially when committed by big companies, might be more likely to result from negligence or poor governance. I am thinking about work carried out by a company or a subcontracted company. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the appropriate threshold of liability for the main offence in the bill? Would a lower threshold be appropriate?

There is a concern that ecocide could have been committed but that it would be hard to hold anyone to account for it, because of the threshold.

SEPA questioned the costs that are in the financial memorandum on leading on investigating an ecocide event. Other organisations, such as NatureScot, have key environmental protection roles. Section 9 will expand enforcement powers. Do we need to enable other authorities to have enforcement powers?

You cut me off before the second half of the question. Yes, this is new legislation, but I put on the record that we have heard concerns from some organisations that they are challenged financially to implement the existing legislation. We heard in previous evidence that there has been a doubling of public complaints but the number of prosecutions has significantly declined. Is there an issue with existing law that needs attention as well as the consideration of ecocide? The two issues are linked. That has been suggested to us by different organisations.

We have been talking about the section 40 offence in the 2014 act. You would prefer this legislation to amending the section 40 offence in the 2014 act—

Organisations have flagged the issue of the costs of implementing the bill. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency raised concerns that the financial memorandum underestimates the costs that it might have to bear, and NatureScot questioned whether it would need enforcement powers extended to it so that it could work with SEPA in relation to protected sites or ecosystems. We also received evidence from West Lothian Council that it lacks resources in relation to monitoring issues, breaches of planning conditions and situations where local authorities are the first responder to a local event.

Do you have any comment on the need to ensure that there is further investment in public sector organisations so that they can implement the legislation?