Chamber and committees

It is challenging, because, as I outlined in my previous comment to Mark Ruskell, a key element of the nominating process that we went through was to ensure that there was local support. There was no point in taking forward a nomination if it did not appear to have strong community backing.

I do not know whether you mean that we must ensure that the community as a whole is represented but that some areas felt that their community had not necessarily been represented in that process. If so, that is why a key part of the reporting process on the back of that appraisal was to gauge the overall interest across the area and to do a deep and wide consultation to get people’s views. That is where the nominating process and the appraisal are important. In the appraisal for Galloway, I think that it was found that there was quite significant and extensive local engagement in and support for the proposal. That is why it was recommended as one of the areas that could proceed to the next stage.

If there are any particular suggestions from members as to improvements that could be made to the nominating or appraisal processes going forward, I am more than happy to consider them, but we did try to build aspects into the process to ensure that there was community engagement and support.

Sorry—are you saying that it is the reporter stage and the engagement stages before it that need to be considered?

It is about continued engagement with them throughout the process. I know that I have talked a lot about it today, but the Scottish Community Development Centre’s report sets out some of the issues that it saw with the process and how to avoid similar situations occurring again in the future. One of its suggestions is about bringing together a local steering group early in the process that can advise, help with that engagement and ensure that there is wider feed-in, so that people do not feel alienated by the process but feel that they are part of the conversation and that it is not something that is being done to them. We need to pay attention to a lot of the points that were raised in that piece of work.

I do not think that any of us would want to end up in a similar situation. We have to be able to have these discussions and debates without ending up as polarised as we have seen and experienced. We certainly want to avoid that in the future.

Absolutely. That was identified in the report. A key part of NatureScot’s recommendation was to look at the existing structures and mechanisms in the area and to consider how to build on them. Those include the natural capital innovation zone, the work that South of Scotland Enterprise is doing, the UNESCO biosphere, the regional land use partnership, which you mentioned, and the framework on the back of that.

Yes, it can be a vulnerable process. I recognise the sheer amount of work done by the volunteers in Galloway and by those who put forward the other bids. I do not, by any means, underestimate how much work went into that and how much capacity it would have utilised.

We tried to support those volunteers and engaged other consultants to support the nominating groups, recognising the burden that the process would put on them. We also aimed to ensure that good quality bids were put forward for the appraisal process. I appreciate the difficulties that you raise and the onus that was placed on the volunteers. It is important that we supported the nominating groups, but I think that it had to be a community-led effort.

We had selected Galloway from that list because it met all the criteria that had been set out through the appraisal process. However, I want to be clear that we set out a process to designate a new national park in Scotland, and, as far as I am concerned, we have completed that process and have come to a decision not to proceed with that designation. I do not want you to think that we will now reopen the process or go back to consider other bids, because we have been through the process and it has been completed. I will not be going back to review those bids or to consider proceeding on that basis.

Generally, we are open to considering the establishment of a national park in the future, but it would be for a future Government to determine how to take that forward. I certainly will not be reopening the process in the time that is remaining in this parliamentary session.

It is not a proposal that has been put to me or that I have been asked to consider, so I would not be looking to consider it at this stage. If a proposal came forward, it would have to undergo significant consultation and engagement. I have not been approached about that, so I am not looking to consider it at the moment.

If anybody wants to have that conversation with me, I am more than happy to have it, but I cannot make any commitments at this stage that I will look to do that, because of the processes that would potentially be involved. Again, I have not received a specific proposal in relation to that.

People have perfectly legitimate views and it is up to them to express those; I will not suggest otherwise. However, I think that outlining what a national park can do and deliver was very much part of what NatureScot undertook in the pre-engagement work that I talked about. It also tried to provide information and outline to people in the Galloway area that a national park was something that was entirely up to them to design if it was something that they wanted to have in their area.

Absolutely. There have been a number of different arguments relating to land of community significance, and we covered a lot of them during the debates on the groups of amendments that we discussed last week. I outlined a variety of issues in that regard. I hope that the approach that I have proposed through the amendments that I have lodged will work better in ensuring that there will be wider engagement and consultation before regulations are made, so that we get the measures right when they are introduced.

I have talked about Tim Eagle’s amendments 422 and 423.

I note that Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 120 aims to bring within the scope of pre-notification any holding that forms part of an inhabited island and constitutes more than 25 per cent of land forming the island. As such a definition would have no minimum area of landholding, it could bring holdings on very small islands within the scope of pre-notification and have a disproportionate and adverse impact on island communities and landowners. That has not been accounted for through our islands impact assessment.

However, I note that some of the other amendments that have been lodged, not just in this group but in other parts of the bill, have considered a variety of different thresholds in relation to our islands. We had removed that condition first of all so as not to disadvantage island communities, but I appreciate that there is still a lot of interest in that area. There is still some work to be done in order for us all to get that right, so I encourage members who lodged relevant amendments in this and other groups—including Mark Ruskell, Ariane Burgess and Mercedes Villalba, although I acknowledge that Ms Villalba is not here today—to have discussions with me.

Amendments 122 and 125 would remove the requirement for single landholdings to be contiguous. We discussed that at the previous meeting and, as I stated last week, we are unable to support those amendments because of the lack of an evidence base to justify the proposal.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 5 would lower the threshold from 1,000 hectares to 500 hectares. Again, we discussed that last week, so I am not going to rehearse the arguments against it that we made then, but I ask that that amendment not be supported.

My further amendments—amendments 123, 124 and 126—seek to strengthen the definition of “composite holding” that is set out in proposed new section 46K of the 2003 act in relation to land affected by the pre-notification prohibitions. Those are similar to amendments 41, 46 and 48, which we debated in group 3, and to my amendment 49, which relates to another part of the bill and has been previously debated. Amendment 127 allows for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250m of each other. I ask the committee to support my amendments. I understand that Mark Ruskell has amendments that are similar to amendment 127—amendments 127A and 127B—and, again, further to the discussion that we had last week in relation to previous groups, I ask him not to move those amendments.

Proposed new section 46L of the 2003 act provides a power that ministers can use to amend the length of the second prohibition period and the land to which pre-notification applies. That allows future adjustment of those parameters. The committee’s stage 1 report said that that was an important feature to enable there to be a response to monitoring review.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 131 and 134 would restrict the proper use of those powers by preventing ministers from making regulations, which would reduce the overall threshold for pre-notification. Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 133 also seeks to amend section 46L but, in contrast, specifies that ministers may not make regulations to increase the overall threshold for pre-notification. Tim Eagle’s amendment 129 looks to entirely remove section 46L and all the powers within it. Between them, those amendments unduly restrict the ability of future Governments to alter thresholds, even if the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they should be altered, which is why I am not able to support them.

Amendment 135 requires ministers to consult before laying draft regulations under section 46L for approval by Parliament and to prepare and publish a report on the consultation. We have lodged a comprehensive Government amendment to require consultation with appropriate people before draft regulations through part 1 of the bill are laid. For those reasons, I do not think that amendment 135 is necessary, and I urge members to oppose it.