Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I am not aware of that proposal. I would have to look at it in detail and consider the implications. I am more than happy to follow up with you directly on that, or to provide that information to the committee, if that would be helpful.

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—