Chamber and committees

The concern that my amendment 382 and other amendments in the group try to address is the unintended consequence where it may be more cost effective for a landowner to resume the whole farm rather than part of it, if they need part of it for development. My amendment is quite simple; it just suggests that the valuation should take that into account. However, I am happy to have further discussions with the cabinet secretary, because I think that we need to sort that out. I am not seeking to constrain the compensation that a tenant would get in any way—it is right that they should be compensated. However, if the unintended consequence is that they lose their whole farm rather than part of it, that is obviously not a good situation to be in. On the understanding that we might have discussions ahead of stage 3 on how to sort out that anomaly, I will not move my amendment.

The drivers for reviewing national park legislation were the strategic framework for biodiversity and recognition of the role of national parks in tackling the twin crises. However, many stakeholders have described the changes that are proposed in the bill as “modest”. What impact will Part 3 of the bill have on national parks’ ability to contribute to addressing those big societal challenges?

Do you think that our national parks have been delivering up till now?

There is an opportunity to make amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. What lessons can be learned from the national park process that we might be able to reflect in the bill?

I was thinking more about lessons in relation to building local support. Obviously, there was not local support in Galloway, but, in the early stages of the process, I was aware that there were several areas of the Highlands and Islands where people tried to build support for a national park designation, and I was surprised at the pushback against that. When we were considering legislating and people were talking about future national parks, there seemed to be a head of steam in favour of national parks, but, suddenly, there was quite a big pushback whereby people in areas where I thought that national park status might have been wanted said that they did not want it.

How should we approach the issue of building local support? Maybe we should also think about how to deal with local concerns, because people have told me that the board would not listen to them. Is that a reflection of how the two boards that we have at the moment are working? How do we make the process more open, get people involved and make them feel that they have a voice on whether they want a national park?

I think that there was community engagement, but it was about who was carrying out that engagement. Where were the trusted voices? People felt that, the moment someone was consulting them, it was a done deal and that that was the aim of the exercise. Therefore, people either took fright and said no or they were very positive about it. Views became entrenched very early on, and it felt as though there was no open and honest conversation about what the proposal could be, how we could shape it and what input we would have if it went ahead. It almost felt as though we missed a stage at the very start, before having the wider consultation.

Yes. Other members will know more about the Galloway situation, but I was very aware of what was happening in relation to the areas in the Highlands and Islands that were putting forward nominations. I felt that people were becoming very entrenched in their views very quickly, rather than being given the opportunity to explore, without any pressure, the nomination and what it would mean for them. Having a stage earlier in the process would give people ownership of it rather than make them feel that they had to make a decision early on.

Is there sufficient balance in the proposed aims of the national park between the protection of natural heritage and the sustainable economic development of communities? We have been speaking to the national parks and have learned that their plans were very focused on housing, because there is a degree of need for it, with people not being able to live in the national parks. Do the new aims in relation to the functions of the national park reflect that aspect?

Okay.

I am simply reflecting what people have said to me, which is that the people who were looking to build a consensus on a national park were not necessarily people who had a community focus. There were groups that were keen on having a national park that had aims and objectives that the community was aware of but that the community felt did not reflect their views. I think that that did not help.

Will a look be taken at having a mechanism that allows communities to come together to discuss a national park proposal very openly without feeling that they are in a yes or no position, which immediately forces them to pick a side, depending on their level of trust or mistrust of the organisation that is promoting the proposal? It seemed to me that it was almost a no-go area for many people from the outset, because of the way in which the putting forward of proposals was being handled.