Chamber and committees

There are a couple of separate issues in that question. There are the issues that can be identified with the current national parks, which you referred to, and there is the issue of how we could look to build community support in other areas at some point in the future. How can we legislate for that or ensure that such support is there?

I think that the issue is partly to do with how we talk about our national parks. There was some misinformation in the campaign in Galloway in relation to what some people felt that a national park would impose. It was not necessarily the case that what they thought would be imposed would have been imposed. There was some misunderstanding about what a national park in the area might mean. An example is that people felt that, if there was a national park, the requirements in relation to planning would be a lot more onerous, but that would not necessarily have been the case, because there is flexibility in the designation process in relation to planning powers and what those might look like for a new national park area. There are issues there.

As far as the national parks themselves are concerned, they do some tremendous work. That came up in our session on the bill, when we spoke about the collaborative nature of the work that they do. They deliver on many of the objectives that we would want to be met—we can all see, I hope, the results of that collaborative work in our areas. However, if there are particular concerns on which people feel that they are not being listened to, I hope that the park authorities would try to address those, where possible. I do not know whether Rhoda Grant has a specific issue in mind, but I would be more than happy to pick that up. Perhaps she has a specific change in mind.

Given the overarching purpose and the aims that we are proposing to modernise and change through the legislation, as set out in the bill, we feel that there is an adequate purpose. We do not feel that there is a need to produce a statement, as NatureScot has recommended. We feel that the driving force behind our national parks and what they should be aiming to achieve is adequately set out in our proposals and in the aims and the overarching purpose.

I am happy to take views on that and get further advice on what it might look like and its potential implications. As you have outlined, there is a close working relationship already, but you are right to say that only local authorities and community councils are specifically mentioned in the 2000 act. If you are recommending widening that, I am more than happy to consider that and see what it might mean. Again, that work is already under way.

That would probably cut across into areas of planning legislation, so I am hesitant to set out what that could look like or where the most appropriate place for changes would be, if they were to be made.

Obviously, our national parks have different planning powers as it is and, should a new national park be created in the future, those powers would be designed to suit the national park authority’s needs. That would potentially be a lot more complex an area than the bill could cover.

It is really concerning to hear that. The independent facilitators, Outside the Box, who were undertaking the engagement work with NatureScot, picked up on that concern and noted some of the behaviour at the engagement events, which was not what we would want to see. We should be able to engage, have a discussion and debate points, as I said earlier, without intimidatory behaviour. People should feel free to express their views, whether they are for or against a proposal.

It comes back to the work that we can do earlier in the process to try to prevent polarisation, so that we can have an open and honest conversation about serious issues and concerns, such as those that were identified during the consultation process. People had legitimate concerns about issues in the area.

We need to be able to have conversations in a constructive way in order to avoid some of the issues that you have described. We have to reflect on the recommendations and move forward in a positive way.

That will be the case for the remainder of this parliamentary session. It will be a decision for a future Government to take in the next session.

I do not think that there would have been much point in stopping the consultation midway through. It was important for that exercise to reach its conclusion, so I would not have agreed to a proposal to halt the consultation when it was only halfway through its established timeframe.

Sorry—are you talking about any misinformation in the campaign?

“Cultural heritage” is defined in the 2000 act as including

“structures and other remains resulting from human activity of all periods, language, traditions, ways of life”

and so on. I think that adding an aim of cultural development is important, because it takes that a step further. It is not just about sitting still and appreciating what we have; it is also about how we can develop that further, into the future. To me, that means also looking at how we can help to develop the creative sectors, for example. It could well mean supporting other community projects related to the creative sector and arts. I see that addition as a positive step forward.

If committee members feel that further definitions or changes to the language are needed, I would be happy to look at that. I am keen to hear what recommendations members might have.

Absolutely. Food would fall under a few different elements of the aims. The element of cultural heritage and development, which is important, or that of economic development would capture all those aspects.