Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

I do not have much to add at this point and am happy to move straight to questions if the committee would prefer that.

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.

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.