Seòmar agus comataidhean

I really struggle with lists, because—you touched on this yourself—we create a list and the focus is then on what is not on the list. From what you are saying, it appears that the objectives in paragraphs (a) to (f) in proposed new section 1(2) are all a bit woolly and that we can fit anything into them. Nowhere does it mention housing, but we hear from the Cairngorms and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs stakeholders that housing is absolutely key. When we heard evidence on the proposed Galloway national park, one of the concerns was about the cost of housing.

You could fit housing into the bill—you could squeeze it into paragraph (e). However, there is no specific mention of it. Is there any point in having these objectives if you can squeeze anything you like into them? It may well be housing, jobs that pay the living wage or whatever. All of those things are important, but are they really the main aims of the national parks? Would it be better to get rid of the list altogether?

My follow-on point from that is whether there is a priority. We have previously heard that there is not a priority and that all the aims are important. However, they ultimately all go back to paragraph (a):

“restoring and regenerating biodiversity in the area”.

That is the overriding and most important aim of a national park. Are the aims set in a criterion that says, for example, that paragraph (a) is more important than paragraph (d) or that paragraph (e) is more important than paragraph (f)? Is there a chance that planners will use the list to prioritise allowing, disallowing or encouraging certain activities and not others?

Are you open to considering amendments that would add to that list, to address some of the specific issues around, for example, housing or jobs that pay the living wage in the national park? Again, there is scant reference to those who live in the national park. Rhoda Grant previously mentioned visitors and tourism, and there is not a lot in the bill about protecting those who live in a national park. Does that need to be expanded on?

One issue that came out above the rest concerned the timescale for organisations to come forward in the bidding process and the capacity within areas to produce successful bids. There is no legislation at all for that, so we may need to look at addressing that by using the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to make amendments to the existing National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.

In some areas, there appeared to be an overreliance on using volunteers to bring forward proposals. We heard in evidence that it took up to seven years to reach a consensus about how the national parks in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and in the Cairngorms would be developed and that businesses, locals, individuals and non-governmental organisations came together to look at how they would see a national park being developed. However, in Galloway, that timescale was significantly shorter.

The main issue was that NatureScot played two separate and distinct roles, one of which was to make recommendations as a reporter to the consultation while the other was as the natural heritage adviser to the Scottish Government. That led to a lot of people suggesting that NatureScot was biased in its role as reporter in providing the Scottish Government with professional advice as well as trying to carry out an effective consultation. How did you weigh up that advice, considering NatureScot’s two roles? Would you consider again an amendment that would provide for an independent reporter to provide the consultation responses for future designations?

Certainly.

Sorry—to make it easy for me, as well as for you, I will just come back in.

Even if the report suggested that NatureScot acted in an unbiased way or as well as it could, from the outset there was a perception that NatureScot simply could not be unbiased. Ultimately, NatureScot promotes and has a huge role in the two existing national parks. Surely it would be more appropriate to choose a reporter with appropriate skills in conducting such inquiries or processes, through which they could set out their recommendations independently of NatureScot. That approach would have immediately taken away some of the suspicion that the process was, from the outset, going to be biased. The fact that the organisation that carried out the overview considered that NatureScot acted unbiasedly did not matter to the people who, from the start, thought that it was biased.

Would you consider having an independent reporter in the future, to remove that perceived bias?

Okay. Thank you.

The process went horribly wrong. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was a complete and utter disaster that pitched community against community. The whole process was polarised from the outset.

You said that you failed to set out how the park could be different, and that was one of the issues. Communities judged what a Galloway national park would be like by basing that on the two existing parks, but they were told that it could be, or had to be, different—we will move on to that idea in a minute. They were told that the impact on farming, forestry and renewables would be on a completely different scale from that elsewhere. Why did the Government and NatureScot fail to set out how a Galloway park could be different in practice?

There were concerns that farmers would have some of their permitted development rights taken away, that there would be stronger regulation of commercial forestry or that the national park would lead to far more low-paid jobs and higher house prices. You kept on saying, “Don’t worry about that. It’s going to be different. It’s going to be flexible.” Why did the process fail to set out how a Galloway national park could be different? People just did not understand how it could be different in practice, and that is fundamentally why we find ourselves where we are today.

It became clear that the misinformation and distrust were about some of the main issues: that house prices would be higher, that there would be less affordable social housing, and that there would be an impact on agriculture and forestry. There was also misinformation about whether renewables would be allowed to expand or would be more controlled in a national park. The fact that there was such misinformation suggests that there was no trust in the national parks and their performance.

An independent review would have taken away a lot of the doubt, speculation and fears at the outset of the designation process. I am not sure why you do not appreciate that point, because you have been telling us about misinformation all along. There is a lack of trust, and an independent review would certainly put that to bed, because the figures would be there and they would be independently reviewed. Moving forward, if future Governments were to be minded to designate a national park, it would be clear what the real picture is. At the moment, that trust does not exist, regardless of whether national parks are producing annual reports or whether they are being scrutinised by the Government or potentially by the Parliament.

We have more or less come to the end of the questions on part 3 of the bill.

Additional amendments to part 3 may be lodged on the Galloway national park and the process for proposing and designating a new national park. At this stage, it is probably more appropriate to bring up those suggestions or concerns around the existing bill in our next evidence session, but it could also inform our discussions on our stage 1 report on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I just wanted to put that on the record.

We come to the end of the evidence session. I propose that we suspend for 10 minutes.

Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2025. Before we begin, I ask everyone to ensure that electronic devices are switched to silent.

Our first item of business is consideration of whether to take item 4 in private. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.