Hansard

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 engagement as those plans are developed, but it is about striking a balance and minimising any risks that there could be in the future. That is why we have used the wording that we have used.

Ross Greer’s amendment 206 would require public bodies to give greater weight to the first national park aim when having regard to the aims and circumstances in which it appears that the aims are in conflict with one another. There is a risk with that amendment that the primary duties and functions of public bodies could be qualified or imbalanced when they are trying to fulfil their own statutory responsibilities. For that reason, I do not support amendment 206, and I ask members not to support it.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 209 and 211 would reverse the changes that are proposed in the bill as drafted, while Sarah Boyack’s amendments 125 and 130 would change the duty from facilitating the implementation of national park plans to actively implementing the plans. The policy intention behind Sarah Boyack’s amendments is perhaps similar to our policy intention in the bill, but the language that is used in the bill provides a balance between the requirement to implement actions that are within the national park plans and other duties and considerations that public bodies might have. Taking all of that into consideration, I ask Tim Eagle not to move amendments 209 and 211 and Sarah Boyack not to move amendments 125 and 130.

On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 64, it is important to note that climate change and nature conservation duties already apply to national park authorities. Additionally, one of the existing conditions for designating a new national park is that it would meet the special needs of the area and would be the best means of ensuring that the national park aims are achieved. Through the amendments to the aims in the bill, biodiversity and climate change are two elements that should be considered in achieving the aims. It therefore seems likely that any area that might be considered for future designation would also need to consider nature restoration and climate action. It is not necessary to introduce a separate condition that focuses on an area’s potential contribution to nature recovery targets. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 64.

I have carefully considered amendment 65 and the choice of reporter, particularly in the light of the recent experience in Galloway and Ayrshire, where NatureScot was appointed to consider and consult on a national park proposal and prepare a report for ministers. I appreciate the concerns that were raised during the consultation and reporting process. It is important that we learn lessons from that experience.

Ministers might wish to have the flexibility to appoint someone other than a public body as a reporter if they consider that to be the most appropriate course of action in certain circumstances. I therefore ask Mark Ruskell not to move amendment 65 today, so that we can have further discussions and work on it ahead of stage 3.

Ross Greer’s amendment 207 seeks to make it a statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for any appeal against a planning decision that has been made by a national park authority. That would undermine the established principle of taking a proportionate approach to the appeals process. It is currently for the reporter to determine the most appropriate approach to obtaining the evidence that they need to determine the appeal. Amendment 207 would mean that a hearing would be required for all appeals, even for minor changes of use and smaller-scale proposals that might have limited bearing on the aims of the national park. Ultimately, that would increase the timescale and the costs involved with the planning appeals process for all parties involved. It would also cut across planning appeals regulations that apply across the country. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the committee not to support it.

Amendment 208 relates to the public accountability of national park authorities and would ensure that each member provides public-facing contact information. I want to assure members that both of our national park authorities take public accountability and transparency extremely seriously. The name, role and register of interests entry for each board member is publicly available on the park authorities’ websites, along with a phone number and a central email address for board members. Correspondence received in the central mailboxes is transferred by the authorities’ governance teams to the relevant board member. That is not only an efficient way of dealing with correspondence; it is a way to reduce cybersecurity risks. Ross Greer’s amendment would suggest the need for the national park authorities to set up and regularly monitor an individual email account for each board member. That would be 17 accounts for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and 19 accounts for Cairngorms, which I believe would be unwieldy and an inefficient use of public resources. For those reasons, I hope that Mark Ruskell will not move the amendment on Ross Greer’s behalf. If it is moved, I ask members not to support it.