Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate the points that have been made in the requests for a review, but, as I have outlined, it is not something that I am actively considering at the moment. We have just been through the designation process and I believe that our national parks are accountable and transparent in relation to what they deliver. If the Parliament wanted to do a deeper investigation into national parks, that is, of course, within the committee’s means.

I think that there could well be, and that is where the cultural development element would come in.

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.

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.