Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 03 December 2025
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.
10:15Ross 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.