Official Report 696KB pdf
Our second item of business is an evidence session with the Scottish Government as part of our consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Today, we will take evidence on part 3 of the bill. I welcome Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and her officials from the Scottish Government: Nicola Bradley-Martin, a solicitor; Brittany Brown, the policy lead; Jenny Gibbons, team leader, national parks; and Felicity Hollands, deputy bill team leader.
We have allocated around an hour to discuss part 3 and, as usual, we have quite a few questions to get through, so I ask for succinct questions and answers.
I will kick off. What difference to national parks do you think that the amendments to the statutory purposes that are being suggested will make?
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.
The 2000 act says that one of the aims of a national park is to
“promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area”,
but the bill talks about promoting the
“sustainable management and use of the area’s natural resources”.
What does that mean in practice?
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.
Thank you. Rhoda Grant will ask the next questions.
The drivers for reviewing national park legislation were the strategic framework for biodiversity and recognition of the role of national parks in tackling the twin crises. However, many stakeholders have described the changes that are proposed in the bill as “modest”. What impact will Part 3 of the bill have on national parks’ ability to contribute to addressing those big societal challenges?
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.
Do you think that our national parks have been delivering up till now?
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.
Good morning. Some stakeholders have questioned the intent behind adding “cultural development” to the aims when there is existing wording around “cultural heritage”. They have suggested that those concepts could be better differentiated by, for example, reference to support for the creative sectors. What is the intention behind that change, and could it be made clearer in the bill?
“Cultural heritage” is defined in the 2000 act as including
“structures and other remains resulting from human activity of all periods, language, traditions, ways of life”
and so on. I think that adding an aim of cultural development is important, because it takes that a step further. It is not just about sitting still and appreciating what we have; it is also about how we can develop that further, into the future. To me, that means also looking at how we can help to develop the creative sectors, for example. It could well mean supporting other community projects related to the creative sector and arts. I see that addition as a positive step forward.
If committee members feel that further definitions or changes to the language are needed, I would be happy to look at that. I am keen to hear what recommendations members might have.
Would that aim link with the Scottish Languages Bill, which, I hope, we are about to pass? That bill promotes Scots as well as Gaelic, so cross-portfolio connections could be a part of this.
I think that there could well be, and that is where the cultural development element would come in.
Thanks.
There has been some concern about what the definition of cultural development is. Some have suggested that you should have considered alternative words such as “creative” or “creative arts”. Was there a reason, or much discussion around, why the term “cultural development” was used?
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.
Would that cultural development include local food cultures as well? Obviously, one of the concerns around new national parks is what they do for food production and the food economy. Could a park bring out a cultural element and that tradition aspect to food marketing under that aim?
Absolutely. Food would fall under a few different elements of the aims. The element of cultural heritage and development, which is important, or that of economic development would capture all those aspects.
Would an aspiration to make an area a food destination and to bring together restaurants, businesses and food producers be seen as a cultural aspect as well as an economic one?
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.
Okay. Thank you. That is making me hungry.
Is there sufficient balance in the proposed aims of the national park between the protection of natural heritage and the sustainable economic development of communities? We have been speaking to the national parks and have learned that their plans were very focused on housing, because there is a degree of need for it, with people not being able to live in the national parks. Do the new aims in relation to the functions of the national park reflect that aspect?
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.
I am afraid to say that I remember the process of the original legislation, and I guess that the four aims were hard fought for in trying to get the balance right. There is an additional focus on different areas through the priorities that are set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of the proposed new section 1(2) of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, but paragraph (f) is the only one that really looks at people’s wellbeing. All the others look at the area, tourism or climate change—nothing really to do with the wellbeing of people. Could that skew the balance of those aims? Previously, we had four equally balanced aims in which, obviously, the natural environment was a priority. I am wondering whether the new sub-aims could skew the balance.
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.
Given that both national parks raised the issue of housing, do you not think that we should be looking specifically at housing for the local community?
09:15
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.
To slightly turn this on its head, what are you hoping to gain with the new sub-aims?
We want to highlight and give specific mention to some of the challenges that we are facing right now in relation to biodiversity and climate change, as well as to highlight the importance of recreation. It is to show that those specific actions will help to deliver the aims.
Okay.
I will pick up on what Rhoda Grant said about housing. We know that there are housing challenges in rural areas. I am thinking about support for repopulation—people say that we need to address depopulation—in our rural areas. That will be part of the aim
“to promote sustainable economic, social and cultural development of the area’s communities”.
Providing housing is a critical part of helping to address depopulation.
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.
I really struggle with lists, because—you touched on this yourself—we create a list and the focus is then on what is not on the list. From what you are saying, it appears that the objectives in paragraphs (a) to (f) in proposed new section 1(2) are all a bit woolly and that we can fit anything into them. Nowhere does it mention housing, but we hear from the Cairngorms and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs stakeholders that housing is absolutely key. When we heard evidence on the proposed Galloway national park, one of the concerns was about the cost of housing.
You could fit housing into the bill—you could squeeze it into paragraph (e). However, there is no specific mention of it. Is there any point in having these objectives if you can squeeze anything you like into them? It may well be housing, jobs that pay the living wage or whatever. All of those things are important, but are they really the main aims of the national parks? Would it be better to get rid of the list altogether?
My follow-on point from that is whether there is a priority. We have previously heard that there is not a priority and that all the aims are important. However, they ultimately all go back to paragraph (a):
“restoring and regenerating biodiversity in the area”.
That is the overriding and most important aim of a national park. Are the aims set in a criterion that says, for example, that paragraph (a) is more important than paragraph (d) or that paragraph (e) is more important than paragraph (f)? Is there a chance that planners will use the list to prioritise allowing, disallowing or encouraging certain activities and not others?
No, and it should not be interpreted in that way. It is not meant to come across in that way or as being hierarchical. As with the four broader aims, the overarching purpose of the national parks is to collectively achieve the aims together.
The bill does not change the Sandford principle, which applies under section 9(6) of the 2000 act—if there is deemed to be a conflict between the aims, the first aim is the overriding one. However, in relation to the list in the proposed new subsection, the aims are not intended to be hierarchical, and one aim should not be prioritised above another.
I completely appreciate your arguments about creating a list. I have touched on that point myself, because it can become about what is not there. It is important to at least reference biodiversity and climate change, given all the work that is happening in that regard. I am more than happy to take away the views of the committee.
By their very nature, the aims can never be all-encompassing and capture all the actions. It is about trying to strike the balance between being general enough that they can cover a lot of that activity and not being too specific, but I am more than happy to hear views.
Are you open to considering amendments that would add to that list, to address some of the specific issues around, for example, housing or jobs that pay the living wage in the national park? Again, there is scant reference to those who live in the national park. Rhoda Grant previously mentioned visitors and tourism, and there is not a lot in the bill about protecting those who live in a national park. Does that need to be expanded on?
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.
Thank you. You just rang a bell in my head. Why does the bill refer to the “prosperity of individuals”? That raised a few eyebrows among stakeholders. What is your definition of “prosperity of individuals”?
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.
Thank you.
Good morning to the witnesses. I have just locked myself out of my laptop. Thankfully, I have a printed copy of the papers in front of me.
NatureScot referenced the modernisation of the aims, which you touched on in an earlier answer. It also said that the proposed additional list would be
“useful in clarifying the intent of the aims”,
which
“could be complemented by the preparation of a national policy statement on National Parks.”
Does the Scottish Government intend to progress that recommendation?
Given the overarching purpose and the aims that we are proposing to modernise and change through the legislation, as set out in the bill, we feel that there is an adequate purpose. We do not feel that there is a need to produce a statement, as NatureScot has recommended. We feel that the driving force behind our national parks and what they should be aiming to achieve is adequately set out in our proposals and in the aims and the overarching purpose.
Okay.
I want to explore the proposal in the bill to have a strengthened duty on public bodies to facilitate the implementation of the park plans. We have heard from both national park authorities that they believe that that is a positive move. The Cairngorms National Park Authority said that
“‘Have regard to’ is a fairly passive term”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 2 April 2025; c 23.]
and that having a duty to help to implement the plans would be a positive move. However, we heard concern from some stakeholders that that duty could run into conflict with a public body’s own statutory duties and functions. What would the Scottish Government like to see fulfilled in practice with that measure, and what changes do you think that that will lead to?
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.
Should a requirement be put into the 2000 act for park authorities to consult a wider suite of public bodies on their plans? Right now, it feels like consultation is restricted to local authorities. Although I think that they all feed in in some way, should the duty be explicitly widened to include further public bodies?
I am happy to take views on that and get further advice on what it might look like and its potential implications. As you have outlined, there is a close working relationship already, but you are right to say that only local authorities and community councils are specifically mentioned in the 2000 act. If you are recommending widening that, I am more than happy to consider that and see what it might mean. Again, that work is already under way.
Thinking about the national park plans that we have and their status as planning documents and as the guiding vision for the local area, I am wondering how they could be strengthened through the bill. Do you have any reflections on park plans in particular?
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.
Public bodies obviously have a duty to have regard to those plans. However, there is less of a requirement for private landowners and developers to abide by and deliver the park plan. Do you think that national parks have enough teeth to deliver the objectives of their park plans when it comes to private landowners and developers?
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.
09:30
I suppose that the question is whether that is working right now. I think that a £10 million lottery bid is going in for a landscape-scale restoration project where I stay in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, for example, so good things are happening, but some private landowners have not bought into that and there is potentially some conflict with the objectives of public agencies as well.
I am thinking back to where the primacy of the park plan sits in the bill and to whether more reforms could be brought in to strengthen that primacy. For example, is it right that a major development—there is obviously a lot of controversy about the Lomond Banks proposal at the moment—would not automatically go to a public inquiry if it were contrary to the park plan? Where does the park plan sit in relation to such developments?
That would probably cut across into areas of planning legislation, so I am hesitant to set out what that could look like or where the most appropriate place for changes would be, if they were to be made.
Obviously, our national parks have different planning powers as it is and, should a new national park be created in the future, those powers would be designed to suit the national park authority’s needs. That would potentially be a lot more complex an area than the bill could cover.
I know that you would not want to comment on the Lomond Banks development itself. However, that particular issue is an example in which a development is in contravention of a park plan but the decision making over it happens elsewhere, and even the process of gathering the evidence and having a discussion and a determination on it is not necessarily guaranteed in the planning system. It feels as if the park authority has planning powers but it is really just the same as any other local authority, and ministers can call things in. There is not necessarily a requirement for a public local inquiry if something is in contravention of a park plan, so I come back to that question about its primacy.
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.
On another day in this room, we have been considering the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and the provisions in it for land management plans. How do you see land management plans reflecting the vision of the park and the park plans?
I think that some of the amendments that we covered yesterday were in relation to the local place plans and what could be set out in the land management plans. An amendment that was supported yesterday was around what consideration land management plans should give to local place plans. We could potentially consult on the matter in relation to national park plans as part of the overall regulations and guidance that we would be delivering for land management plans. The issue could be considered in that work; it is important that we have that consultation and engagement on it.
You would expect the guidance for land management plans to reference park plans when they exist, obviously, and that someone who was producing a land management plan would need to refer to what was in the national park plan in their area.
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.
That would make sense. In Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, I think that just about every community now has a local place plan, apart from three that are aiming to complete them by the summer. That local planning, park planning and land management planning should all flow together and be unified.
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.
Following on from Mark Ruskell’s question, I have one on the period for which these plans are in place and how often they are reviewed. Do you think that there is the potential for conflict? Local authorities have an electoral cycle and there are national plans such as the United Kingdom forestry standard, but we have a forestry industry that needs to plan 25, 30 or 35 years in advance. How can you ensure that the national park plans are flexible enough to deal with that?
Commercial forestry might not be a huge consideration in Sitka spruce scenarios and in the Cairngorms, but when the Government considers other areas—for example, the Galloway and Ayrshire national park—how can we be sure that the national park plans recognise the electoral cycles of local authorities and national plans such as the UK forestry standard? How can the park plans interact with those to ensure that they are flexible enough that they do not put off or divert investment away from local authorities when it comes to election and budget-setting scenarios?
I imagine that, given the length of time that the national parks have had experience of producing their plans, that is not a particular concern; I have not been made aware of that causing issues. The park plans always start from the premise of collaboration and engagement with the relevant public bodies and other authorities. Because of the strong relationships and the collaboration that happens there, I do not see that being an issue. I do not know whether the committee has heard about that in evidence.
Thank you.
Good morning. My question is about bylaws. What are the opportunities for the use of bylaws in the national parks to tackle issues such as antisocial behaviour, public safety and environmental damage?
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.
The committee heard support in principle for national park authorities being able to issue fixed-penalty notices in respect of bylaws. However, concerns have been expressed that that power could detract from the role of ranger services in engaging with the public, providing education and supporting voluntary compliance. Is there a risk that having powers to issue fixed-penalty notices would detract from the ranger services role?
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.
Is it about taking swifter action rather than waiting for the enforcement procedure that is available at the moment?
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.
While we are talking about fixed-penalty notices specifically linked to farming, I know from our national rural crime officer that there is interest in Police Scotland looking at six-week limitations for accessing Conic Hill, part of the west Highland way, which goes through the Lomond and Trossachs area. That would limit access for folk with their dogs or mandate that the dogs go on a lead in order to reduce livestock attacks. Are you aware of that? Could that be pursued? According to the rural crime officer I spoke to, that could help to reduce livestock attacks during lambing time.
I am not aware of that proposal. I would have to look at it in detail and consider the implications. I am more than happy to follow up with you directly on that, or to provide that information to the committee, if that would be helpful.
We have more or less come to the end of the questions on part 3 of the bill.
Additional amendments to part 3 may be lodged on the Galloway national park and the process for proposing and designating a new national park. At this stage, it is probably more appropriate to bring up those suggestions or concerns around the existing bill in our next evidence session, but it could also inform our discussions on our stage 1 report on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I just wanted to put that on the record.
We come to the end of the evidence session. I propose that we suspend for 10 minutes.
09:42 Meeting suspended.