Chamber and committees

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.

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.