Holyrood, made browsable

Hansard

Every contribution to the Official Report — chamber and committee — searchable in one place. Pulled from data.parliament.scot, indexed for full-text search, linked through to every MSP.

129
Current MSPs
415
MSPs ever elected
13
Parties on record
2,355,091
Hansard contributions
1999–2026
Coverage span
Official Report

Search Hansard contributions

Clear
Showing 0 of 2,355,091 contributions in session S6, 16 Apr 2026 – 16 May 2026. Latest 30 days: 148. Coverage: 12 May 1999 — 14 May 2026.

No contributions match those filters.

← Back to list
Committee

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 03 December 2025

03 Dec 2025 · S6 · Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Item of business
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Eagle, Tim Con Highlands and Islands Watch on SPTV

I now have to try to argue that my amendment is stronger—we will see how we get on.

Part 3 of the bill outlines the aims of national parks. My amendments 314 and 202, 203 and 204 seek to add further aims for national parks, focusing on “strengthening the local economy”. For me, the bill’s proposed changes fail to take the opportunity to deal with issues that really affect rural Scotland, such as housing and the local economy. There seems to be a focus on priorities such as tourism and visitor access over issues such as local farming businesses, to the detriment of the rural economy and the natural environment.

Food production and farming are core to Scotland’s rural economy. They are also key drivers of the local community and landscape management. My amendments 314, 202, 203 and 204 seek to address some of the issues by strengthening the local economy. I would be happy to work with the cabinet secretary prior to stage 3 to get that point across in the amendments.

My amendment 315 works alongside my amendments 317, 318, 319 and 201, which, together, would remove almost all of part 3. Part 3 makes various amendments to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Stakeholders have said that part 3 of the bill does very little. The proposed new section 1 of the 2000 act introduces some new language that, at best, is clarifying. The so-called reform of the national park aims also makes very limited change.

I have already mentioned key local concerns around housing and the local economy. Importantly, the Government has not taken the opportunity to establish a review of the existing national parks. The parks have been in existence for some time, and it is fair to say that many have raised concerns. A review would allow a full understanding of how the parks have performed, what value they bring to the taxpayer and how we can ensure that they work for the people who live in them and the country. With that in mind, I cannot support making changes to national parks without having that full picture of how they have been working.

10:00  

My amendment 316 seeks to add a new section to the bill, after section 5, to require a policy statement on national parks. The amendment would require Scottish ministers to publish and review at least every 10 years a Scottish national parks policy statement to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. The policy statement should set out broad policy direction in relation to national parks, including a vision and the outcomes that are sought. The framework would ensure transparency and require consideration of local support and public engagement.

My amendments 209 and 211 seek to reverse the change that the bill will make to how the national parks and other bodies are to interact with national park plans. Currently, under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, bodies are required to “have regard to” the plans. My amendments seek to maintain proportionality and flexibility in public bodies’ obligations by continuing to require them to “have regard to”, rather than “facilitate”, national park plans.

I seek to ensure that there will be evidence-based policy development through an independent review of existing national parks before any new designation is made, and that review would be established via my amendment 214. The amendment seeks to add a section to require a review of the effectiveness of the existing national parks to be carried out before any designation is made for the creation of any new national park.

In the same item of business

The Convener Con
Our remaining agenda item is consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. As we have quite a few groups to get through, I ask everyon...
The Convener Con
Amendment 201, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 122, 314, 61, 123, 202 to 204, 62, 124, 206, 63, 315, 64, 65, 207, 208, 316, 126, 127, 3...
Mark Ruskell Green
As members know, I am standing in for Ariane Burgess, so I will speak to her amendments, Ross Greer’s amendments—because he is at the Education, Children and...
Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab) Lab
Part 3 of the bill provides a welcome opportunity for us to update Scotland’s national parks so that they can better respond to our nature and climate crises...
The Convener Con
We will support Sarah Boyack’s amendments. Does she agree that, had those aims been in the original act, the issues and concerns—about housing, employment an...
Sarah Boyack Lab
That is the point that I was making in relation to lessons to be learned. When we established the first national parks, making sure that people could afford ...
Tim Eagle Con
I now have to try to argue that my amendment is stronger—we will see how we get on. Part 3 of the bill outlines the aims of national parks. My amendments 31...
The Convener Con
I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 61 and other amendments in the group.
Mairi Gougeon SNP
There are a number of amendments in the group, and I will work through them as best I can. Although I understand the rationale for Ross Greer’s amendment 20...
Sarah Boyack Lab
Could you give us an example of the kind of problem that you think might be created? We are looking for joined-up thinking that supports communities, individ...
Mairi Gougeon SNP
I absolutely agree with that. I will have to follow up with a specific example of what that could look like. We have tried to strike the right balance in the...
Mark Ruskell Green
I am thinking about the primacy of the national park plan. If public bodies are engaging in the national park plan, surely they are actively furthering that ...
Mairi Gougeon SNP
However, there could be conflict in the future. I agree with what you say about how public bodies interact with the parks and park plans, and there is close ...
Rhoda Grant Lab
I understand the point about security issues, but it seems a bit strange that there is not at least an email address from which board members could pick up t...
Mairi Gougeon SNP
Again, all that that would do is add more pressure to the way that the system is handled. Potentially, those addresses would still be centrally monitored, wh...
Rhoda Grant Lab
I am not suggesting that it would be an official park email address. It would be an individual email address in the same way as we all have email addresses i...
Mairi Gougeon SNP
I have not heard from the boards that they would seek to have that arrangement. I believe that the parks are broadly content with how correspondence is manag...
Mark Ruskell Green
These are not new issues. The cabinet secretary might recall that there was much debate about setting the boundary of the Cairngorms national park. In fact, ...
Mairi Gougeon SNP
I appreciate what you set out and the genesis of the amendment, but I have to be clear that this just has not featured among the issues that have been raised...
The Convener Con
I call Mark Ruskell, on behalf of Ross Greer, to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 201.
Mark Ruskell Green
This is a huge group of amendments that cover so many different issues, and it is very difficult to unpack them all in a single debate. Sarah Boyack perhaps ...
Sarah Boyack Lab
That is a really important issue. We do not want public bodies cutting across national park plans. We want the national park plans to reflect the views of ot...
Mark Ruskell Green
That was very well put. It cuts both ways: the park plans need to reflect the wider public objectives that public authorities are working towards, but they a...
The Convener Con
The question is, that amendment 201 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener Con
There will be a division. For Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Isla...
The Convener Con
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0. Amendment 201 disagreed to. Amendments 122 and 314 not moved.
The Convener Con
I remind members that, if amendment 61 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 123 due to pre-emption. Amendment 61 moved—Mairi Gougeon.
The Convener Con
The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener Con
There will be a division. For Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)...
The Convener Con
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0. Amendment 61 agreed to. Amendments 202 to 204 not moved. Amendment 205 moved—Tim Eagle.