���˿���

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.