Chamber and committees

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?

We would want to ensure that, as far as possible, we are not developing the plans and doing everything in a silo. It makes sense that those things align.

Bylaws are in operation in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. It is important that our parks have the ability to deal with particular issues. I know that the committee heard evidence from the national parks about that. We are considering a bylaw on fire management for the Cairngorms national park, given some of the significant issues that we have seen with wildfire, which is an increasing problem. Our parks having the ability to address such problems is important and powerful.

Where the bylaws have been operating in Loch Lomond, they have been effective. The measures that we are looking to introduce through the bill will help the enforcement of those bylaws to be even more effective than it is now. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park is trying to do things in relation to water safety, which is a key concern, and being able to address some of the problems that they have seen has been important.

The ability to introduce bylaws is very much a beneficial power that our parks have. The measures that we are looking to introduce in the bill can only strengthen that.

I do not have much to add at this point and am happy to move straight to questions if the committee would prefer that.

I hope that I was able to outline in my announcement and my statement to Parliament a couple of weeks ago why we reached the position that we reached.

We have been through an extensive process. The statutory process, in which we appointed NatureScot as the reporter to advise on the proposal, commenced last summer. We received that report, in which the main recommendation was that we should not proceed with the designation but should, instead, look to build on existing structures within the overall area.

The NatureScot report outlined significant opposition to the idea of a national park. The overall figures from the consultation showed that 54 per cent of people were opposed to the national park and that 42 per cent supported it, but, when local responses alone were considered, that first figure rose to 57 per cent of people being opposed to designating Galloway as a national park.

The NatureScot report detailed a number of concerns that were raised throughout the consultation process. I know that there were concerns from specific sectors such as renewables, agriculture and the forestry sector. On the basis of its consultation, NatureScot made the recommendation that was the basis for our decision.

Could I come back to some other points that you raised about the process, convener?