The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3723 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
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?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
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?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
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?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
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?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
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?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
On the process, do you think that there should be a firmer vision of the proposed national park at the point at which ministers formally propose it? That is a bit ambiguous under the legislation. There was an attempt to get the discussion going locally—from the bottom up and led by local people. Has that worked? Would it not be better, in a way, to have a much clearer vision at the point of proposing the park? The 2000 act does not explicitly require that.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Yes—that is difficult. You are asking people whether they want a national park, but when people ask, “What is it?” you are saying, “Well, you decide.” It is a tricky one.
Another point has been raised with me about guidance and how a suggested area has to meet the criteria under the 2000 act. Does there need to be a bit more guidance on that?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
It sounds like there will be no more national parks for Scotland for the foreseeable future, at a time when lots of national park proposals are being developed in England and elsewhere.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
It came up in the discussions around the Tay forest bid, because the boundaries of that park would be contiguous with the existing two national parks. There are communities that perhaps have a better understanding of what a national park looks like, because they can look to their neighbours and see exactly what is happening. Would you be open to a conversation around that if, say, Perth and Kinross Council or others came forward and said, “Look, there is a case now to adjust the boundaries in some way”?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
I have a quick reflection. Do you agree that, where a larger estate has to produce a land management plan, surrounding smaller landholdings—farmers, typically—would benefit? They would not have to produce a land management plan, but the transparency of a nearby estate would be there, so they could see more clearly the future for the area and how they might fit into that.
Do you not think that the requirement for transparency and to have a discussion with bigger landholders would benefit smaller landholders such as yourself or the convener? Clearly, your land would not be captured by the 1,000 hectare threshold currently set by the bill.