Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will move on to questions that focus on quota shares and access agreements. What are your reactions to and main concerns about the extension to 2038 of the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement on access and quota shares? Some spokespeople have suggested that that was a complete capitulation. Perhaps Elspeth Macdonald can kick off.

What are the practical knock-on effects of that? I come to you again, Elspeth, then I will bring in Jimmy Buchan. Given that the agreement will stand until 2038, what is the situation going to look like in our coastal communities and our processing sector?

From your perspective, Jimmy, with reference to security and confidence on the processing side, is the agreement going to have an impact on your sector?

What role does the industry have in lobbying or working with the Scottish Government so that the Scottish Government makes the industry’s position clear on future trade agreements?

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?

We have heard that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee recommended that there should be an independent review of national parks to inform future decisions. We heard that suggestion throughout the consultation, and you have touched on it yourself. There was misinformation around some of the challenges that the current national parks have. Would it not be sensible to have an independent review of national parks? We know that they have annual reviews, but, effectively, the park authorities mark their own homework. Although the Government has oversight of that process, there is a lack of confidence that the reports reflect the true situation in national parks. There are still questions about whether parks deliver on their nature targets and for local communities.

Would you consider an independent review? If one had been in place prior to the Galloway national park proposal, the arguments would not have been quite so polarised and there would not have been accusations that misinformation led people to their conclusions about whether there should be a new park.

There has been some concern about what the definition of cultural development is. Some have suggested that you should have considered alternative words such as “creative” or “creative arts”. Was there a reason, or much discussion around, why the term “cultural development” was used?

Thank you. You just rang a bell in my head. Why does the bill refer to the “prosperity of individuals”? That raised a few eyebrows among stakeholders. What is your definition of “prosperity of individuals”?

Following on from Mark Ruskell’s question, I have one on the period for which these plans are in place and how often they are reviewed. Do you think that there is the potential for conflict? Local authorities have an electoral cycle and there are national plans such as the United Kingdom forestry standard, but we have a forestry industry that needs to plan 25, 30 or 35 years in advance. How can you ensure that the national park plans are flexible enough to deal with that?

Commercial forestry might not be a huge consideration in Sitka spruce scenarios and in the Cairngorms, but when the Government considers other areas—for example, the Galloway and Ayrshire national park—how can we be sure that the national park plans recognise the electoral cycles of local authorities and national plans such as the UK forestry standard? How can the park plans interact with those to ensure that they are flexible enough that they do not put off or divert investment away from local authorities when it comes to election and budget-setting scenarios?

Thank you.