Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 03 December 2025
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.