Chamber and committees

I appreciate that that could have been an issue and a concern for people. We have just had the session on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. From my perspective, the work that we are doing on agriculture would not have been impacted had the proposal gone ahead and vice versa, because farmers would have still received their payments in the same way, regardless of whether they were in or out of a national park area.

I do not think that the aims of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and what we are proposing would have fundamentally altered the proposal that was being considered for Galloway. So much is happening across the Government at the moment that I appreciate that people on the outside looking in could view it that way but, from my perspective, those things would not have fundamentally altered the proposal.

In some ways, it is all very well to say that with hindsight now. However, I hearken back to the parliamentary debate that took place in 2022, at which every party in the Parliament unanimously supported us in looking to establish another national park. No concerns were raised at that point about an independent review or that the national parks were not delivering on their stated aims and objectives, so that was not considered at the time.

As I responded to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I am not considering undertaking a review at the moment. I believe that our parks are accountable and transparent and that they deliver on their objectives. As I have set out and as I have said previously, there is oversight from ministers. There is also a role for the Parliament in that respect; if there were to be any concerns from the Parliament, the committee could undertake an inquiry into national parks. I do not feel that there is a particular need to review them at the moment, so it is not something that I am actively considering.

I appreciate the points that have been made in the requests for a review, but, as I have outlined, it is not something that I am actively considering at the moment. We have just been through the designation process and I believe that our national parks are accountable and transparent in relation to what they deliver. If the Parliament wanted to do a deeper investigation into national parks, that is, of course, within the committee’s means.

I think that there could well be, and that is where the cultural development element would come in.

I hope that I was able to explain that in some of my previous responses. I think that the use of the word “development” suggests that it is something that one looks to encourage, much in the same way as we would talk about economic or sustainable development. It is about how we take something that step further.

If there are other suggestions on language, I am more than keen to hear them, but I would like to think that we have the balance right in relation to what the phrase “cultural development” could mean more broadly—as I have said, the promotion of the creative industries could be included in that. It is important that we do not narrow the definition too far down, though, because the aims in themselves are quite broad and fairly generic, so that they can encompass a lot of that activity.

Yes, they undoubtedly have been doing more for biodiversity and climate as well as more generally for the communities that live in the parks. I would point to some of the projects in park areas—Cairngorms Connect, for example, has been doing important work in bringing together different partnership organisations. One real benefit of having national parks is that they can do that at a landscape scale. They have the convening power and ability to bring together lots of different organisations and people, which is critical.

We can also look at the promotion of sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Both parks have had pilot projects with farmers and land managers working in those areas, to try to encourage more nature-friendly and climate-friendly farming. All of that has been really positive. The parks have been a real driving force in helping to tackle some of those big challenges.

I would like to think so, because I think that it is really important. More broadly, it is a really important part of our heritage and what we produce across Scotland.

I hope that it builds on work that is already happening across our national park areas. Having a stronger duty to facilitate the implementation of the plans puts more of a focus on all public bodies to work to deliver that. That is an important element that we have introduced to the bill.

It is also important to remember that our national park plans are not developed in isolation—our national parks already have to work with local authorities and other public bodies in their development, and there is extensive consultation around that.

Ultimately, it is up to public bodies to deliver a lot of what is set out in the plans. We have touched on housing today, and I think that there are provisions in the bill that will help with that. I do not perceive too much of a conflict between what the national park plans are trying to achieve and the overall duties of our public bodies. A section of the bill makes it clear that the obligation will apply only

“so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of”

that public body’s functions, which I think manages that issue. I hope that what comes through in the evidence that you are hearing from stakeholders is the strong relationships that exist between the national park authorities and other public bodies, particularly local authorities. It was interesting to see the evidence that the committee received from some of the councils, which welcomed some of the duties that we intend to introduce.

What we are proposing to introduce through the bill will build on the strong partnership working that is already in place. The real benefit of the plans is—to come back to some of our discussions this morning—in the overall convening power that the national parks are able to bring and the focus that they are able to put on those critical areas to drive the plans forward. The plans are strong and focused, and they help to drive that delivery. The measures that we are planning to introduce through the bill will help to make them even stronger and ensure extra focus on the delivery of what is set out in the plans.

You are absolutely right about the boundaries. NatureScot had said that, should ministers decide to designate, it would have recommended the smaller core area, as it outlined in its report.

The situation was difficult according to the different reports that came out. NatureScot also outlined in its report that, if somebody felt that they were against a national park, it was harder to engage with them about the different options of what boundaries could look like and what shape governance could take. The boundary choices were informed by engagement with local people and other stakeholders. There were always going to be difficulties with that.

Can you remind me of your second point?