Chamber and committees

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

Ultimately, we have tried to modernise the aims, and some of the language has been simplified. I do not think that the amendments to the statutory purposes will fundamentally alter the work that our national parks do and what they deliver; rather, they will ensure that the aims better reflect the work that our national parks do. Importantly, the proposed new section 1(2) of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, which modifies the aims, highlights the actions that are key to delivering those aims, and it also better reflects some of the key challenges that we face at the moment with regard to the biodiversity and climate crises and sets out the role of our national parks in tackling them. The key aim is to introduce that language in order to better reflect the work that our national parks are doing.

That change has been proposed because the parks’ aims are about not just the use of our natural resources but how they are managed in the interests of climate, nature and people. That phrasing better reflects the work that is done as part of the aims.

I would say that that is covered by the final provision of the proposed new section 1(2), which talks of

“promoting sustainable development activity which improves the health, wellbeing and prosperity of individuals and communities”.

People who live and work in our national park areas are absolutely a key priority. We want them to be thriving in prosperous areas. I am more than happy to engage in discussions with members around the table about any potential amendments that they would like to see and to get advice on any implications. I am happy to have those conversations.

As I reflected in my previous responses, it better reflects the critical work that our national parks do in delivering for biodiversity as well as tackling the climate crisis that we face. As with anything, there will undoubtedly be people who think that we could have gone further.

Ultimately, we are trying to get a balance between what we put forward as the aims of the national parks and the other vital work that national parks do, recognising that the parks are a place where people live and work. I feel that, with the modernisation of that language and the addition of the subsection that I mentioned, we might have that balance right. I am keen to hear the views of the committee, however, and I am interested in seeing what it recommends in relation to stage 1. The proposed new subsection is also important because it picks out specifically how some actions will help to deliver those aims. It puts beyond doubt that those actions will contribute to the four aims as they are set out.

I feel that they do. I am more than happy to get views on the matter if members feel that the balance is not quite there, but I think that the aims broadly capture some of those issues. You are absolutely right that the issue of housing, which has been identified in the park plans, is huge. We want to ensure that we have sustainable and thriving communities in our national parks as well—that is absolutely critical. However, I feel that the issue is captured in the aims that we have and that, overall, we have that balance. We cannot forget that the overarching purpose of our national parks is to ensure that the four aims that are set out in the bill are collectively achieved, which I think gives them equal importance.

The sub-aims are really more to show, and to put beyond doubt, that the actions that are being taken contribute to the aims. They are not meant to be hierarchical; it is not about putting one above the other, but about highlighting those actions.

If more clarity needs to be sought—particularly as your expertise in this area definitely extends beyond mine—we are keen to get that evidence from the stakeholders who have responded to the committee as well as from members, but we have introduced those provisions in a way that we feel strikes that balance.

I would have to consider what that would mean. However, housing is fundamental to the general aims, even outwith the proposed subsection. It is a given that, if we want thriving communities and we want to achieve the fourth aim of national parks, which is

“to promote sustainable economic, social and cultural development”,

we ultimately need people to live and work in our park areas. A fundamental element of that is the delivery of housing and ensuring that we have adequate housing for people in the area.

We could never have a definitive list of every single action. This is always the problem with lists: once something is there, it could become a case of making additions, or, if something is not on the list, people might feel that it is missing altogether. I am keen to get views on that. Housing is a key issue, but it would be captured by what we have set out.

Absolutely. I outlined the importance of housing in helping to deliver the fourth aim in the subsection. As Rhoda Grant highlighted, there is also reference to

“promoting sustainable development activity which improves the health, wellbeing and prosperity of individuals and communities”.

Housing is intrinsic in helping to deliver on those aims.

It is important and, as I have already set out, it is about facilitating the implementation of the plan. I do not know how much stronger it could be made without there being wider implications on other public bodies and the potential for conflict with their duties. As I have said, I do not imagine that that would happen, but there are provisions in the bill that help to deal with that situation. The issues that you reference are more in relation to the planning system, though, which is something that would have to be looked at in relation to our overall planning legislation, as opposed to measures through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.