Chamber and committees

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.

It is important that we recognise and reference that, as well as having thriving communities, people as individuals are important. If there are views to the contrary, I am more than happy to hear them, but it is about communities and the individuals who live in them. It is important to identify that.

National parks have a lot of experience in working in that area, because the vast majority of the land across our national parks is in private ownership anyway. They have a strong record of collaboration, working with landowners and land managers. The national park plans themselves have to be widely consulted on, and that engagement with all relevant people is really important. Another important point to remember is that the regional land use partnerships are about bringing together the public bodies. Each of our national parks has a regional land use partnership and framework, which is about bringing together all the different representatives to drive forward the priorities for the area. It is not necessarily about having teeth but about fostering collaborative working and trying to ensure that everybody is pushing in the same direction.

All that I am saying right now is that that could well be the case but it is something that we need to consult on and look at. If we are doing that with local place plans, national park plans are potentially a part of that, but more detail would follow in the guidance and the regulations that we would introduce on the back of that bill.

Yes, absolutely. You would hope that that could also act as a deterrent. If people knew that they could be given a fixed-penalty notice, that could deter behaviour that we would not want to see in our national parks. The role of rangers in educating and having those conversations with people will still be critical, but the fixed-penalty notices are an additional tool that they can use.

I certainly do not think so. The rangers have an important role in the national parks. The fixed-penalty notice regime would just give them that extra tool. Enforcement can be cumbersome for the national parks now because of the route that they have to take of referring things to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I do not see the addition of fixed-penalty notices as changing the role of rangers. I think that it gives them an additional tool for tackling some of the issues that they can experience on the ground.

No doubt you will have heard evidence from the national parks about the training that their rangers go through. That is critical. Enforcement is always a last resort—you do not want it to be the starting point. However, it is important that they have that ability rather than having the system that operates at the moment, which I do not think gives them the ability to tackle some of the issues that they are seeing as effectively as they could.