Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.