Chamber and committees

Again, all that that would do is add more pressure to the way that the system is handled. Potentially, those addresses would still be centrally monitored, which would mean that, whoever was monitoring them would have to monitor 17 different accounts in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, for example, and then pass emails on to members, rather than monitoring one account. That would be unwieldy and an inefficient use of resources.

I have not heard from the boards that they would seek to have that arrangement. I believe that the parks are broadly content with how correspondence is managed at the moment. They might still consider handling those accounts in the same way, which would be unwieldy. I can only reiterate my points on that.

Amendments 126 and 127, in the name of Sarah Boyack, seek to insert a definition of cultural development into the 2000 act. If a definition of cultural development is to be included, it is important that we get the drafting right, to avoid unintended consequences. I would just like a bit more time to consider that; but, to be clear, I agree with what Sarah Boyack is trying to do. I would be happy to work with her on the definition ahead of stage 3, so that it is clear and comprehensive. Therefore, I ask her not to move her amendments today, to allow that conversation to take place.

Amendments 128 and 316 seek a national parks policy statement. Having reflected on the recent process that we have been through to look at the proposal for a new national park, I appreciate that some people said that they would have found it helpful to have a clear understanding of the Scottish Government’s vision for national parks and the role that they play. I have concerns about the resource implications of Sarah Boyack’s amendment 128 and cannot support it on that basis, but I am happy to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 316.

I understand the rationale for amendment 129, in the name of Sarah Boyack. During the recent consultation process on the designation of a new national park, some parties said that they would have liked greater clarity on what national park designation would mean in practice. A major concern about amendment 129 is that a blueprint for a new national park, including the boundary, functions and governance structure, would have to be presented without the benefit of consultation and co-design with local communities and stakeholders. Many people would be likely to criticise the Scottish Government for imposing what would then be considered to be its view of a national park on their area without proper consultation. If Sarah Boyack is willing not to move her amendment today, I am willing to work with her ahead of stage 3 to discuss a possible alternative, such as a requirement for ministers to seek expert advice on the rationale for designating a national park in an area before a formal proposal is made by ministers. On that basis, I hope that Sarah Boyack is content not to move amendment 129, to allow time for that conversation to take place.

Amendment 66 modifies the fixed penalty notice provisions in the bill to include the ability to confer powers to enter the land for, or in connection with, the issuing of fixed-penalty notices. I ask the committee to support amendment 66.

Ross Greer’s amendments 212 and 213 also seek to modify the fixed-penalty notice provisions. I have sympathy for Ross Greer’s rationale for these amendments, but I do not think that the provision that they would make is necessary, because proposed new section 26A of the 2000 act already provides for the amount of the fixed penalty to be discounted or increased by an amount or a percentage in circumstances specified by the regulations. I agree that repeat offenders should be dealt with more severely, but, in some cases, a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service would be the most appropriate next step. It is also worth noting that ministers will be required to consult stakeholders and interested parties before making the regulations that set out the detailed regime. For those reasons, I hope that Mark Ruskell, on behalf of Ross Greer, will not press amendments 212 and 213.

On amendments 27 and 214, from Mark Ruskell and Tim Eagle respectively, I appreciate that some members have called for a review of national parks, following the recent process in Galloway and Ayrshire, and I have therefore given these amendments very careful consideration. Amendment 27, in the name of Mark Ruskell, would place a duty on ministers to prepare a report on the benefits of expanding the existing national parks. Again, that has not been raised with me or put forward for ministers to consider. A report of that kind would require significant time and resource from the Scottish Government, the two national park authorities and other public bodies and organisations operating in the area. The preparation of a report within 12 months of the bill’s achieving royal assent would also be extremely difficult to achieve, given the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary election and the time that would be required to consult local communities and businesses. The requirement for the report to assess the potential impact of expanding the boundaries of the existing parks on meeting the biodiversity targets proposed in the bill does not seem realistic, given that the bill provides a framework for targets and the actual targets are not known at this stage. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 27.

I do not believe so. First, that will be the key strategic document. Given section 2 of the 2024 act, what the rural support plan has to give consideration to and set out is, I believe, quite comprehensive. It is also important that, in its development, that key strategic document is judged and assessed against, and has regard to, the good food nation plan and the outcomes. That means that it is built into the development of the areas that the rural support plan has to cover.

An important point is that if, in our development of policy in those areas, it is apparent that there is a gap, we will look to pick that up through our monitoring. It is in nobody’s interest for there to be any key missing areas in the legislation, so the monitoring and how we assess impact will be important.

As I have talked about, the monitoring and how we look at that will be critical to ensuring that the have-regard duty has effect in the way that is intended. I will hand over to officials, who will be able to say a bit more about that. Through the development of the SSI and the plan, there has been key working across Government to build relationships with different policy teams. That is how the schedules of functions and descriptions have been collated, which I think has already developed that wider understanding.

I do not know whether Tracy McCollin wants to say a bit more about the monitoring work—which will, I hope, provide more reassurance on that front.

I expect us to have a close working relationship with the Scottish Food Commission, because, given its role in scrutinising the plan, it makes absolute sense for us to have that. The commission is independent and can look at its own work, but I expect to have close engagement and discussion.

Ashley Cooke wants to come in at this point.

Yes, absolutely. As Ash Cooke outlined, there will be engagement throughout.

This is not a case of the plan being published and that being it. So much work will continue in the background and so many pieces of work are on-going. We are already looking ahead to future iterations of the plan and to reporting and reviews. The plan is the starting point for a new area, but there will be engagement and we will work closely with the Scottish Food Commission when we get any recommendations from it.

Its duties do not specifically relate to that area, but Tracy McCollin outlined the monitoring work that we will do to ensure that we are capturing some of those duties.

If we look ahead to the next few months and the amount of legislation that Parliament will be dealing with, we can see that there is a risk that we might miss some duties that we might need to bring back or to consider in the future. That is why the specified descriptions are important, because they are broader, all-encompassing areas, which means that any legislation would also be covered by the broad descriptions set out in that list. We will keep a close eye on that to ensure that we capture any new duties or powers.

There are specific review points for the good food nation plan within the legislation, and those could act as points where we could also report on how the powers have been exercised. There is also the engagement work that Tracy McCollin and the good food nation team are taking forward, so it is not necessarily a case of waiting for that specific review point. If it transpired that there was another area where it would be appropriate for us to add to that list, we would bring forward another instrument at that point rather than wait for the review period. I hope that that makes sense.

I agree about the impact of planning, but we are trying to ensure that we address some of those issues in the most specific way whereby it will have an impact on what we set out in the good food nation plan. I can only repeat what I said about trying to strike that balance. If, in practice, it turned out that we had missed something in the development of our policy on a specific area, we would bring forward another instrument to try to address that. The monitoring and the work that is taking place across the Government will be really important in picking that up.

I would not agree with that. The approach that we have taken is not so broad stroke that implementation of the plan would not mean anything and would not work in practice.

This has been a long process—we first consulted on the measures early last year—so I would not want to withdraw the regulations and delay any further. We can only look to improve the process from here. I believe that we have covered all the key bases that are set out in the good food nation plan, and we can only look to add to that in the future. I would be concerned if the regulations were not approved, because I think that we have a strong basis here, and not approving the regulations would delay the plan being brought into consideration.