Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

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.

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.

There is quite a lot to pick up on, convener, so I hope that you will allow me to address all of your points.

On your last point, about NatureScot’s role as a reporter, it is important to note that that is what is set out in the 2000 act. I received two sets of advice from NatureScot that are very separate and distinct. The advice from NatureScot in its role as a reporter was based on the wide range of consultation that it had undertaken and the views that it had heard, and its report was produced on the back of that. Separately, we received advice from NatureScot in its other role, in relation to the other elements of the proposal, which advice was distinct. As I said, NatureScot’s role as reporter is set out in the legislation.

Another important report that was published at the time of my parliamentary statement the other week was the report from the Scottish Community Development Centre, in which it commented specifically on the role of NatureScot as a reporter. It is important to outline that the SCDC was appointed to independently assess the work and engagement that NatureScot had undertaken. The SCDC felt that NatureScot had

“managed to navigate the process with a commendable level of neutrality”.

The SCDC picked up in the report that there had been criticism of NatureScot, but it found that that would be expected in any

“high-profile public consultation”.

It also noted that

“few other organisations would have had the capacity and expertise to manage such a complex and large-scale”

exercise. It went on to say that NatureScot was the

“perfectly acceptable choice”

of reporter for the Scottish Government to make, given that it is the agency that operates on environmental issues. It is important to outline that in this context.

I will pick up on some of the other points—

I am not going to rule anything out. It is important that we consider the outcomes of the consultation, the whole process and how we can improve going forward. We must learn lessons from that—there is no question about it. I am following what is set out in the legislation. You would expect me, as a Government minister, to do that.

I appreciate the concern, which was raised with me early in the process, including directly by you, convener. It is important to outline the process that NatureScot undertook and to recognise that it was a significant undertaking. That is where the independent assessment and the views on NatureScot’s process are important.

Other organisations were brought in in relation to the engagement exercise. It is important to highlight the work that led to those findings of neutrality.

It is a matter of having the flexibility to design the process. As much as how to go about doing nominations was not set out in the 2000 act, the process that was established and the flexibility for us to design the process has represented an important exercise. There were various stages of consultation throughout 2022 and 2023, to consider what the criteria might be and how we would appraise different groups, and looking for nominations from those groups. Being able to design that process—trying to ensure that a bottom-up approach was taken to something that communities actually wanted—has been a positive.

It is also important to point out that local support was a critical element, as assessed through the appraisal process by the expert panel, in determining how to move forward to the next stage and what groups we should proceed with.

There are a couple of separate issues in that question. There are the issues that can be identified with the current national parks, which you referred to, and there is the issue of how we could look to build community support in other areas at some point in the future. How can we legislate for that or ensure that such support is there?

I think that the issue is partly to do with how we talk about our national parks. There was some misinformation in the campaign in Galloway in relation to what some people felt that a national park would impose. It was not necessarily the case that what they thought would be imposed would have been imposed. There was some misunderstanding about what a national park in the area might mean. An example is that people felt that, if there was a national park, the requirements in relation to planning would be a lot more onerous, but that would not necessarily have been the case, because there is flexibility in the designation process in relation to planning powers and what those might look like for a new national park area. There are issues there.

As far as the national parks themselves are concerned, they do some tremendous work. That came up in our session on the bill, when we spoke about the collaborative nature of the work that they do. They deliver on many of the objectives that we would want to be met—we can all see, I hope, the results of that collaborative work in our areas. However, if there are particular concerns on which people feel that they are not being listened to, I hope that the park authorities would try to address those, where possible. I do not know whether Rhoda Grant has a specific issue in mind, but I would be more than happy to pick that up. Perhaps she has a specific change in mind.

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.