Seòmar agus comataidhean

In some ways, it is all very well to say that with hindsight now. However, I hearken back to the parliamentary debate that took place in 2022, at which every party in the Parliament unanimously supported us in looking to establish another national park. No concerns were raised at that point about an independent review or that the national parks were not delivering on their stated aims and objectives, so that was not considered at the time.

As I responded to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I am not considering undertaking a review at the moment. I believe that our parks are accountable and transparent and that they deliver on their objectives. As I have set out and as I have said previously, there is oversight from ministers. There is also a role for the Parliament in that respect; if there were to be any concerns from the Parliament, the committee could undertake an inquiry into national parks. I do not feel that there is a particular need to review them at the moment, so it is not something that I am actively considering.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.