Seòmar agus comataidhean

The whole Parliament is currently considering a draft climate change plan. It seems odd that ministers will not have regard to climate change or social security under the SSI that is before us. I wonder why there are such big omissions at this point. If the whole point is to have policy coherence and draw all the important threads together, now is surely the time, particularly with regard to climate change, when we should be considering what a good food nation is. Ministers should be thinking across portfolios in such areas. I am not sure why there are such big omissions at this point.

If the schedules were updated at some point in the future, including under a future Government, would they potentially include climate change and social security, or is it job done for those areas?

As members know, I am standing in for Ariane Burgess, so I will speak to her amendments, Ross Greer’s amendments—because he is at the Education, Children and Young People Committee—and my amendments. I will try to get through them succinctly.

Amendment 201, in the name of Ross Greer, would specify

“protecting and enhancing the special quality of the area’s landscapes”

as one of the national park sub-aims. The bill will remove the term “special qualities” from the third aim in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Amendment 201 is intended to add balance back into the aims, recognising the importance of landscape and visual impacts. The amendment is backed by Action to Protect Rural Scotland and the Scottish Campaign for National Parks. It builds on the Scottish Government’s work to recognise and promote special landscapes.

Amendment 206 would extend the Sandford principle beyond national park authorities and apply it to other public bodies. Currently, under the Sandford principle, a national park authority must prioritise nature conservation when it comes into conflict with other subordinate national park aims. That is an important principle that delivers conservation.

The bill as introduced imposes a duty on ministers, councils and other public bodies to

“have regard to the National Park aims”,

so it is a logical extension that, when we impose that duty, we also extend the prioritisation of the aims within the Sandford principle. For example, it would make no sense if a planning decision was considered by a park authority and refused on the basis of the Sandford principle—if, in other words, priority was given to conservation above other interests—but that ministers, when considering a planning appeal, did not also have to have regard to nature as the top priority.

Amendment 207 would require a public hearing when a planning application in a national park is appealed. That reflects the special nature of planning decisions in national parks, with hearings acting as an opportunity for ministers and reporters to hear directly from experts. They could be local residents who are experts in the national park, as well as subject-specific experts who can advise on the potential impact of development proposals.

Amendment 208 would require national park board members to have “public-facing contact information”. That is a small step, but it would improve transparency and trust in national parks. It is odd that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority is the only planning authority anywhere in the UK where members, including those who have been directly elected, are not directly contactable by those they represent.

As a matter of good governance, it should be possible for people to be able to contact board members directly without authority staff acting as a filter. There might be issues that are directly related to the staff, about which residents would need to get in touch directly with board members to raise a concern. I live in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. It seems odd that, a couple of years ago, I was asked to vote to elect my directly elected board member for the local area but their contact details are not available if I want to make a representation to them.

Amendments 212 and 213 seek to impose a multiplier regime for fixed-penalty notices that are issued for byelaw violations in national parks, reflecting that repeated offences ought to carry increased penalties. That is in line with other multiplier fining regimes that we have in low-emission zones, for example.

I will move on to my amendments in the group. The introduction of the proposed new duty in section 5 relating to national park aims is welcome. However, the form of words that is proposed is “have regard to”. Amendment 62 would strengthen the duty on ministers, park authorities and public bodies so that they would have to “actively further” national park aims, which is a more action-focused form of words. There would be an active duty on public bodies to take all reasonable steps to further national park aims. That underlines the importance of avoiding harm, which is a statutory aim of the national parks, and of seeking to further conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage of an area. A stronger duty could help to improve progress in delivering the aims and help to deliver new statutory biodiversity targets.

National parks have a major role to play in addressing the climate and nature crises. It has been suggested by stakeholders that any area that is proposed as a new national park should demonstrate how the designation would contribute to meeting nature recovery or climate targets. Amendment 64 proposes to do that by adding a new fourth condition for designating a national park area.

Amendment 65 would specify the nature and role of the reporter for a new national park proposal. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 sets out that the reporter is a role for NatureScot, but ministers should have the flexibility to appoint whichever person or body they believe to be the most appropriate. It might be appropriate to choose a reporter who is skilled in conducting inquiries and public processes, with NatureScot taking a slightly different role. For example, it could feed in its expertise on the natural environment at an earlier stage when the proposals are being drawn up, rather than being the reporter, which would allow NatureScot to promote its expert view on nature conservation, access and landscape and, if appropriate, to support the benefits of a national park in a specific area during the debate with local communities. NatureScot could become a statutory consultee should ministers see fit.

Whichever body or individual takes on the reporting role, the 2000 act currently sets out procedures but very few exceptions as to how a reporter should conduct its work. Reporters should be required to produce recommendations independently, and those recommendations should be evidence based and developed for the benefits of the people of Scotland, both current and future generations.

Amendment 27 would require ministers to review the potential of expanding the boundaries of the two existing national parks. The current boundaries of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park arguably do not follow the natural geography of the surrounding areas and landscapes. Loch Tay and Loch Earn are bisected by park boundaries that follow old council lines. National scenic area landscape protections around Strathearn sit outside the park, and the park board has no responsibility for planning decisions. It seems odd that towns such as Comrie and Kenmore are not gateways to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs park from the east. A boundary review would provide an opportunity to build on the success of our two existing national parks and to see whether there are opportunities to expand them.

I move amendment 201.

These are not new issues. The cabinet secretary might recall that there was much debate about setting the boundary of the Cairngorms national park. In fact, John Swinney had to introduce a member’s bill to change the boundary. In the recent campaigns and public consultation around the designation of a new national park in Scotland, there was considerable interest in, public support for and engagement on a Tay forest national park, which would, in effect, by default, have expanded the coverage of national parks in Highland Perthshire. The essence of expanding what national parks do in Perthshire has been consulted on, there is considerable public support for it, and there is an appetite for considering it. If that is not done through this amendment or by putting something in the bill, how would the cabinet secretary see the public interest continuing and, if there is support for it, potentially leading to a boundary change in the future?

This is a huge group of amendments that cover so many different issues, and it is very difficult to unpack them all in a single debate. Sarah Boyack perhaps summed it up when she said that we need to learn lessons and look to the future.

There are a number of strands here. There are the learnings around the recent designation—or lack of designation—of Galloway national park, and there are learnings around the debacle over the Loch Lomond Flamingo Land application. There are serious concerns that the national park plan has been undermined, and there is a lot of learning there about the primacy of the park plan and the accessibility of park board members.

That is just one area of consideration. There is also a debate about landscape, and there is a debate around the purpose of national parks. Cabinet secretary, you have made a number of commitments to a number of members to have further conversations between stage 2 and stage 3. The conversation around the primacy of park plans, ensuring that all public authorities do not dismiss the park plans but work to further the aims of the parks and the aspirations in the plans, is a really important one. The committee has had evidence that there are public authorities, including Forestry and Land Scotland, that have—in some cases—actively undermined some of the objectives of park plans. On Flamingo Land, there are learnings about the role of Scottish Enterprise in relation to the promotion of a site for a development that was hugely unpopular and was in contravention of the park plan.

Within the nugget of some of the amendments in this group, there is concern about democracy and about the accessibility of park authorities. There is also a desire for the democratically agreed park plan to be delivered, with everybody pulling in the same direction. I hope that, if we can take some of the essence of those concerns into conversations with you between stage 2 and stage 3, cabinet secretary, we can find a form of words that reflects the aspirations of the communities.

Members will be aware that we have so many amazing rewilding nature restoration projects under way across Scotland, many of which have been funded by the nature restoration fund, and communities and non-governmental organisations are often involved in managing those sites. However, no current level of protection is given to those undesignated sites, such as community-owned woodlands, where considerable amounts of time, effort and money have been spent. If the ownership of those sites was to change hands in the future, little would prevent a new owner from undoing the restoration that has taken place.

Amendment 67, in the name of Ariane Burgess, requires ministers to review existing measures to protect sites where restoration and rewilding are under way and consider whether new protection or designation might be required to ensure that the gains for biodiversity can be retained in the future. Amendment 67A makes a small change to wording to clarify that restoration and rewilding are on-going processes.

Amendment 303, in the name of Ariane Burgess, picks up on an issue that was included in the Government’s initial public consultation on the bill. The Government proposed including new measures to increase the proactive management of protected areas. The bill consultation noted:

“Under the current legislative regime there is no general obligation on land managers to improve or restore features in unfavourable condition or to take action to prevent them from deteriorating to unfavourable condition.”

We can all think of examples in our regions and constituencies where protected areas are clearly not protected and continue to degrade.

At the time, the Government reflected on that and proposed a solution to amend the existing land management orders and nature conservation orders to clarify that provisions are to enforce active management of nature features in protected areas and to tackle issues such as invasive non-native species, which are absolutely degrading many of the sites. That issue cuts to the heart of what the bill is trying to achieve, because this is a nature emergency bill. Despite having protected areas, we see such degradation and loss continue.

Eighty-six per cent of respondents to the Government’s consultation supported proposals to address that. This morning, we have already heard about the importance of consultation and going with the grain of that. Measures to increase the proactive management of protected areas were not included in the bill despite public support. Amendment 303 seeks to add them in. Although I acknowledge that some revisions to the wording of the amendment might be required before stage 3, I hope that the cabinet secretary can give support to the policy in principle today, given that the Government consulted on it and found strong stakeholder and public support. I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary says.

I move amendments 67 and 67A.

I want to continue my point. From discussions with estate owners who are developing land management plans at the moment, I know that there is not a hard line between moorland and woodland, for example. The best place to talk about the future of the planning of an estate and where the balance of conservation and different habitats lies is in a land management plan. We agreed provisions on land management plans in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Those did not go as far as I would have liked, but I am quite hopeful that, in the land management plans, moorland will have its voice, and communities that have an interest in and a love of moorlands will be able to influence those plans in a way that recognises the importance of the future of that landscape. I understand the essence of what the member is trying to achieve, but I think that we got to where we got to at the end of the process of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, and I would like to see that being rolled out.

On energy infrastructure, I know that there is a campaign, but I go back to our discussions last week about part 2 of the bill: our system of environmental assessment is working and it is robust. I see communities using the concerns that ecologists are raising in environmental assessments to build the case for considering the refusal of renewable energy developments, to assuage concerns, or to focus concerns on areas where there might be an impact and to enter into discussions with developers at the pre-application stage on the siting of turbines and other matters. It offers a window on the potential impact of renewable energy development. If there is not an impact of renewable energy development, I do not see why it cannot go ahead, but that is for the energy consents unit to discuss. The more that communities can engage with the environmental assessment process and reveal that impact, the better, so I do not see the necessity for amendment 334.

No.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Just to be clear, are you arguing that NatureScot should have a role in determining the level of livestock in a particular strath or area?

I pay tribute to the social care staff and unpaid carers of all ages who work so hard to take care of people under often very difficult circumstances. Low pay, understaffing and a lack of access to proper breaks from caring have all placed enormous pressure on people who give their all day in, day out, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the sector is in crisis. Historic underfunding has led to long waits for care and support, which is too often only available, if at all, when people reach crisis point.

We can all reflect on the real experiences of our constituents and our own families. Parents are denied social care for their son when a package would transform the lives of everyone in the family. A grandfather is trapped in a hospital bed, waiting for social work and the NHS to finally agree a package so that he can return home. Despite the passage of the Care Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, fundamental reform of the sector is still needed, because the ambitions of the independent review of adult social care have not yet been realised.

For example, we are yet to achieve ethical commissioning, which would recognise the value of the third sector as equal partners in delivering social care. Representatives from the sector are clear that the current commissioning model is harmful and unsustainable. According to the Scottish Association for Mental Health,

“Ethical commissioning should be based on partnership and cooperation between commissioners, social care providers and people in receipt of social care, rather than the existing model of competition which prioritises cost.”

In their closing speeches, I want to hear from ministers about what steps they are taking to ensure that genuine ethical commissioning is taking place in the sector.

In 2021, the Scottish Government committed to ending non-residential social care charges, but no meaningful progress has been made since then. As a report that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published last month highlighted,

“disabled people face deepening poverty and rising costs”.

Disabled people’s access to social care support is critical to the realisation of their human rights, but they are all too often denied those rights by a system that brutalises them and fails to meet their basic needs. A Glasgow Disability Alliance survey that was conducted last year revealed what that means in practice for disabled people—93 per cent were worried about money, 71 per cent could not meet their needs on their income and 67 per cent could not access social care that actually met their needs.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report found that, at the same time as disabled people and their households are facing rising costs, local authorities are making decisions to increase non-residential social care support charges and raise eligibility thresholds for accessing support. The report is clear that the Scottish Government and COSLA should work together, without delay, to deliver a clear timeline for removing non-residential care charges.

The SNP’s amendment is right to note that the UK Government’s hostile immigration policies are starting to have a “devastating impact” on the sector. Scottish Care has warned that UK Labour’s proposal to extend the qualifying period for settlement for legal migrants, particularly the increase from five to 15 years for those on health and social care visas, will have a “profoundly negative impact” on care services across Scotland. We cannot afford to lose those hard-working people from the sector. I urge Scottish Labour to acknowledge the impact that those policies will have, and are having, in contributing to the crisis that exists in the social care sector.