Seòmar agus comataidhean

Welcome back. We will move on to questions on part 3 of the bill, which is on national parks.

I appreciate that.

That concludes our evidence session. I thank the witnesses for being so generous with their time. We have run considerably over the time that we thought we would need, so we appreciate their attendance.

I am very conscious of the time—you have been very generous with yours—but I would like to ask a couple of questions before we close the evidence session. I will ask them all together.

The bill seeks to amend the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, so we have had legislation on national parks for 25 years, but there has not been a full review of the effectiveness of national parks over those 25 years. There is annual reporting, but there has not been a significant review of performance, with a cost benefit analysis, to see whether things could be done differently. Given that a number of proposals in the consultation are not being taken forward, we have a new climate change plan and we have the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024—a whole lot is going on—is this the wrong time to be introducing new legislation on national parks?

A designation process is also being carried out in parallel to consideration of the bill. We are asking people in Galloway to comment on national parks, but they are not sure what the legislation will look like if the designation of a national park is made. Is this the wrong time to be introducing the bill? Should we have carried out a review and considered the other pieces of legislation that are coming forward before potentially revisiting amendments to the 2000 act in the future?

That is everything about the birds and the bees. Thank you, Mark.

Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill with stakeholders representing national park authorities and local authorities that cover part of a national park.

I welcome to the meeting Grant Moir, who is the chief executive officer of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, and Gordon Watson, who is the chief executive officer of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. Joining us remotely, we have Mark Lodge, who is a senior planning and strategies officer from Argyll and Bute Council.

We have approximately 90 minutes for the session. Before we move to questions, I remind you that you do not have to operate your microphone. We have a gentleman here who will do that for you.

I will kick off with the first question. Do you support the introduction of statutory nature targets, recognising that those targets will be set in regulation? At this stage, how do you think the targets might impact you as public bodies?

We will try to move to Mark Lodge. He is not on the screen. Indeed, I am told that, unfortunately, we are not able to get him on screen at the moment. I will ask a supplementary question first and hope to come back to Mark to pose the same first question.

The nature targets will cover the whole of Scotland. There are concerns about how they might be viewed in national parks and about whether, in national parks, there will be more effort to ensure a gold standard approach, with everything done by the book, which might mean that the approach is far more stringent within national parks than outwith them. Could you see that happening in the future, whereby, once again, there is a difference between how legislation or its flexibility is applied in national parks and outwith them?

Okay. Do you have any comments about the introduction of the statutory nature targets in your local authority?

However, the list will be in the bill. I mean no disrespect to planners but, following legislation, there is guidance and we know that planners like to reference guidance when recommending approval of an application. Might having a list affect planners’ focus and result in their saying, “It’s not on the list or in the guidance, so we’re minded to refuse the application”? I am worried that the list being in the bill will limit what can be done.

Thank you. We will move on to part 2 of the bill and a question from Rhoda Grant.

I will expand on that. If you will bear with me, I will read out what the policy memorandum says. A non-regression provision was not included because it would

“significantly limit the flexibility of the power and therefore the Scottish Government’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances.”

It goes on to give examples:

“if amendments were proposed for net zero purposes that required a change or reduction in certain aspects of current environmental protections, in order to meet the Scottish Government’s overarching environmental goals, or if amendments were proposed that could be viewed subjectively as reducing environmental protections.”

It also states that such a provision

“may be seen to limit the ability to adapt the regimes to ensure developments which support offshore wind can go ahead”.

That all makes me think about a recent planning application for an overhead power line in Galloway, which will have a significant impact on the natural environment in some areas that have been designated, including the removal of native woodland. The application went to a public inquiry and the independent reporter suggested that the impact was unacceptable. However, the Scottish ministers overruled the reporter. Is it not the fact that, by not having a non-regression provision, the Government could do whatever it wished on the back of some other target—a target that is not necessarily specified? Do we not need some limitations? Grant Moir talked about limiting change in terms of non-regression. Do we not need some safeguards? For example, the issue with the Kendoon to Tongland project was cost rather than an environmental impact, but the independent assessor said that the impacts were unacceptable. Do we need some protection in there to make sure that renewables, for example, do not have an irreversible and unacceptable impact on the natural environment?