Seòmar agus comataidhean

My point is about the lack of transparency when it comes to the role of the energy consent unit and the Scottish Government’s decisions in overruling EIAs. Do we need to legislate to make the decision making more transparent at that level?

Grant Moir touched on the point that, as soon as we create a list, what is missing from the list, not what is included, becomes the most important thing. Section 1(2) states:

“Without limit to the generality of subsection (1), those aims include”,

and, as has been said, landscape is missing from the list. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but that means that new national parks could have renewable energy developments as part of the mix. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has suggested that a new national park in Galloway, for example, might be able to include wind farms or whatever as part of the mix. The absence of landscape as an important aspect of a national park makes me think that the door will be open to allowing developments that would not be in the spirit of the aims of national parks when they were first set. Should we have a list at all? Should we just take it out?

We always hear that national parks are set up specifically for their areas—Galloway national park would be for the people of Galloway, and Cairngorms national park is for the people of the Cairngorms. However, the bill includes overriding national priorities, and the exclusion of aspects such as landscape could limit what a national park board might be able to invest in or what parks could do compared with what was possible in the past.

Am I looking too deeply into the issue? Should we just get rid of the list altogether and ensure that national parks can address local priorities as well as national priorities?

Yes. That is evidence that the park’s aims and objectives are wide-ranging and almost limitless. When it comes to local authorities having a duty to implement a park plan, and with new national parks potentially coming forward, is there a need for legislation to say that the park plans must be drawn up with the local authority on a legal basis? Ultimately, the park plan could set out objectives that have a budget requirement. Whether that objective is for the local authority to build more affordable housing or to create more access or whatever, that has a budget implication. On that basis, given how wide-ranging the park plan could be and that the local authority will have a duty to implement the park plan, does there need to be a far stronger legal basis for national park authorities to work with local authorities, which are ultimately the budget holders for a lot of the plans that might come forward?

This may be a daft laddie question, but take a local authority that sets out its priorities and then a park board that sets out its slightly different priorities. Ultimately, much of the budget to deliver the park plan will lie with the local authority. How does that work in practice? The top priority for Acme national park is more social housing, but that goes above and beyond the local authority’s priority for building social housing. That is just an example. The issue could be more rest areas or more access to forests or whatever. At the end of the day, it might be Forestry and Land Scotland that has to come up with the cash for more parking spaces or more toilets in our outdoor areas or whatever. How does that work in practice?

We have a supplementary question from Emma Harper.

I guess the concern is that there are opportunities for members to lodge amendments as a bill progresses through the Parliament, and members have lodged amendments at the last minute, at stage 3, to previous bills, so there could be a designation process for a Galloway national park under legislation that does not currently exist. Surely that is not the optimal way to deal with designation or legislation. I know that, as it stands, the bill does not change a huge amount, but it could look quite different by the time we reach the end of the bill process. There could be the addition of new aims and objectives, different ways to deal with fixed penalties or whatever. Surely you agree that that is not the optimal way to deliver a new national park.

We are having problems in getting our remote witness online. The first questions are about parts 1 and 2 of the bill. We will then move to part 3, which is specifically about national parks. I am quite sure that Mark Lodge will be able to answer questions that have already been asked, but I am concerned that we might lose—[Laughter.] Oh, there we are. I am delighted to see you online, Mark. I am sorry about the technical issues. Were you able to keep up and hear the questions as they were asked?

We are all aware that there are capacity issues in local authorities across Scotland, particularly in planning. Do you see any capacity issues for local authorities if we have a new tranche of targets for them to police and monitor? Do we need to be aware of that?

Will there be additional expectations for national park authorities to deliver when it comes to ensuring that they do everything that they can to meet future targets? Will there be gold-plated expectations for national parks? Will the expectations for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms national parks be higher than those for Argyll and Bute Council, for example?

Should we, as parliamentarians, look for the bill to include a clear indication of the requirement for public consultation?