Chamber and committees

I imagine that, given the length of time that the national parks have had experience of producing their plans, that is not a particular concern; I have not been made aware of that causing issues. The park plans always start from the premise of collaboration and engagement with the relevant public bodies and other authorities. Because of the strong relationships and the collaboration that happens there, I do not see that being an issue. I do not know whether the committee has heard about that in evidence.

I think that some of the amendments that we covered yesterday were in relation to the local place plans and what could be set out in the land management plans. An amendment that was supported yesterday was around what consideration land management plans should give to local place plans. We could potentially consult on the matter in relation to national park plans as part of the overall regulations and guidance that we would be delivering for land management plans. The issue could be considered in that work; it is important that we have that consultation and engagement on it.

I am not aware of that proposal. I would have to look at it in detail and consider the implications. I am more than happy to follow up with you directly on that, or to provide that information to the committee, if that would be helpful.

There is quite a lot to pick up on, convener, so I hope that you will allow me to address all of your points.

On your last point, about NatureScot’s role as a reporter, it is important to note that that is what is set out in the 2000 act. I received two sets of advice from NatureScot that are very separate and distinct. The advice from NatureScot in its role as a reporter was based on the wide range of consultation that it had undertaken and the views that it had heard, and its report was produced on the back of that. Separately, we received advice from NatureScot in its other role, in relation to the other elements of the proposal, which advice was distinct. As I said, NatureScot’s role as reporter is set out in the legislation.

Another important report that was published at the time of my parliamentary statement the other week was the report from the Scottish Community Development Centre, in which it commented specifically on the role of NatureScot as a reporter. It is important to outline that the SCDC was appointed to independently assess the work and engagement that NatureScot had undertaken. The SCDC felt that NatureScot had

“managed to navigate the process with a commendable level of neutrality”.

The SCDC picked up in the report that there had been criticism of NatureScot, but it found that that would be expected in any

“high-profile public consultation”.

It also noted that

“few other organisations would have had the capacity and expertise to manage such a complex and large-scale”

exercise. It went on to say that NatureScot was the

“perfectly acceptable choice”

of reporter for the Scottish Government to make, given that it is the agency that operates on environmental issues. It is important to outline that in this context.

I will pick up on some of the other points—

I am not going to rule anything out. It is important that we consider the outcomes of the consultation, the whole process and how we can improve going forward. We must learn lessons from that—there is no question about it. I am following what is set out in the legislation. You would expect me, as a Government minister, to do that.

I appreciate the concern, which was raised with me early in the process, including directly by you, convener. It is important to outline the process that NatureScot undertook and to recognise that it was a significant undertaking. That is where the independent assessment and the views on NatureScot’s process are important.

Other organisations were brought in in relation to the engagement exercise. It is important to highlight the work that led to those findings of neutrality.

It is a matter of having the flexibility to design the process. As much as how to go about doing nominations was not set out in the 2000 act, the process that was established and the flexibility for us to design the process has represented an important exercise. There were various stages of consultation throughout 2022 and 2023, to consider what the criteria might be and how we would appraise different groups, and looking for nominations from those groups. Being able to design that process—trying to ensure that a bottom-up approach was taken to something that communities actually wanted—has been a positive.

It is also important to point out that local support was a critical element, as assessed through the appraisal process by the expert panel, in determining how to move forward to the next stage and what groups we should proceed with.

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.

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.