Chamber and committees

There is already that engagement—

I absolutely appreciate that. Those discussions have been held with my team, and I do not know whether any of them would like to add anything. I think that that has been covered.

Yes. The Scottish Food Commission has a specific role, which is set out in the legislation but it has no specific role in relation to the have-regard duty. As I outlined earlier, if the commission wants to do any work on that or if it has any suggestions about areas that we should consider in the future, we would be open to any of those recommendations, but its specific duties and functions do not relate specifically to that area.

Again, it is not possible for me to set out a timeframe, because it will depend very much on how the situation evolves. As I outlined, we hope that the regulations will future proof things to a certain extent, given that the descriptions cover a broader area that will include the development of future policy. Although the SSI has not yet been approved, there has been on-going engagement and dialogue with the good food nation team and other policy areas across the Government in relation to the development of some key areas, in order to ensure that the plan and its outcomes are given that consideration.

I do not believe so. We consulted on the measures a long time ago, and so much work has gone on in both developing the plan and considering the matters that we have been discussing. It is important that we brought forward the draft regulations when we did. I can only repeat what I said about the approach that we have taken and about striking the balance.

I would have to look for advice on what is set out in the legislation on our bringing the regulations forward.

In some areas, such considerations are already picked up in specified functions elsewhere. I outlined that in my letter in response to the committee, specifically on climate change and some areas of social security. We have picked up the areas where there is a direct link to food. We did not want to duplicate what exists elsewhere, but we have picked up on the key areas that are referenced in the plan, and I believe that we have covered them through the descriptions and functions that we have set out.

I am not saying that those areas are not important; they are all completely interlinked, and we reference that in the good food nation plan. There is wider engagement between teams in recognition of the interlinked nature of those various policies.

That presumes that we could take it away and do that work before the end of the parliamentary session. I do not think that that is a given, due to the amount of legislation that we have to deal with.

I stress once more that there has been a lot of on-going dialogue. I acknowledge the concerns that stakeholders expressed during the consultation and engagement, but we would not be able to satisfy some of those concerns, because doing so in some areas would require there to be a far broader duty, which could mean that the implementation of the have-regard duty would have less effect.

I believe that we have struck the right balance, and I hope that the committee feels that it is able to support the regulations today. Of course, we welcome any scrutiny and any recommendations on how we can build on the instrument, but I am concerned about the gap that could exist. I think that we have a strong foundation to build on, and we can only look to improve it.

There are a number of amendments in the group, and I will work through them as best I can.

Although I understand the rationale for Ross Greer’s amendment 201, I believe that its aim is already covered by the first aim, which is

“to conserve and enhance the area’s natural and cultural heritage”.

There is also an issue with the amendment’s use of the term “landscapes”, because it is a subjective concept that does not have a legal definition in Scotland. If we introduced an undefined term to the national park aims, it could lead to uncertainty for decision makers in the parks. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 201.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 202 to 204 and 314 relate to the promotion of employment, job creation, business development, sustainable development, the availability of affordable housing and the strengthening of the economy in our national parks, and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 122 relates to similar areas. Those are really important elements of ensuring that we have thriving communities in our national parks. I think that they are already encapsulated in the fourth aim, which is

“to promote sustainable economic, social and cultural development of the area’s communities”,

but I understand why Tim Eagle and Sarah Boyack seek to modify proposed new section 1(2) of the 2000 act, which elaborates on the aims. If they are content not to press their amendments today, I will be happy to work with them both ahead of stage 3.

My amendment 61 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 123 are very similar in nature. They relate to the final provision in proposed new section 1(2) of the 2000 act, which elaborates on the aims. I have listened to the views of stakeholders who questioned the way that the provision has been drafted, particularly the reference to the “prosperity of individuals”. My amendment 61 clarifies that the policy intention is to promote people’s health and wellbeing and community prosperity. Given that the wording in my amendment will ensure that the health and wellbeing of individuals is still included in the aims and that the amendment has been drafted in keeping with the language that is used throughout the bill, I ask the committee to support my amendment 61 and I ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendment 123.

The purpose of my amendment 63, which is a minor consequential amendment, is to provide consistency between paragraph 3 of schedule 3 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and amended section 5(2) of that act. I hope that members will support it.

As Tim Eagle outlined, his amendments 315 and 317 to 320 collectively seek to remove part 3 from the bill, so I ask members not to support those amendments.

I now turn to amendments 62 and 124. Through the new duty in section 5 of the bill, public bodies will be required to “have regard to” the national park aims when exercising functions that affect a national park. However, it is recognised that public bodies will need to balance those aims with their other statutory duties and considerations. We consulted widely on the “have regard to” duty, and respondents to the consultation were supportive of the proposal that we put forward. My concern is that, if amendments 62 and 124 strengthened the duties so that public bodies that operate in national park areas were required to “seek to further” or “actively further” the national park aims, there is a risk that that would affect how public bodies balanced consideration of the national park aims with their other statutory duties and considerations. That could open the bodies up to legal challenge when they are trying to fulfil their statutory responsibilities. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments, and I also ask members not to support them.

I absolutely agree with that. I will have to follow up with a specific example of what that could look like. We have tried to strike the right balance in the wording that we have proposed, which is based on consultation that received a lot of support. We want to ensure that there is no potential for legal risk further down the line.