This is a briefing we have written for MSPs to inform the Stage 3 debate on the Natural Environment Bill. This gives a summary of all the amendments put forward for Part 3 – the section concerning National Parks.

Nine amendments have been lodged relating to Part 3, all of which would ultimately modify the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’).  The effect of each is summarised below. We recommend the following approach to each (with our reasoning given below under each numbered amendment):

Amendment 48 – Emma Harper  MSP

Effect: Modifies section 1 of the 2000 Act (National Park aims) with the effect of adding a new item to the list of new sub aims at subsection (2) of encouraging sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

Reasons For Opposing 48 – Scotland’s National Parks already encourage sustainable and regenerative agriculture, which we support, however agriculture is by no means the only land use in National Parks, nor the only one that needs to be made more sustainable. The 2nd and 4th of the main National Park aims cover ALL land uses in their scope including agriculture, forestry and sporting estates. An alternative sub aim with wording of “encouraging sustainable and regenerative practices in all land uses” would add additional detail that seems more in line with the scope of the National Parks’s remit, but is already covered by the higher-level, statutory National Park aims.

Amendment 71 – Tim Eagle MSP 

Effect: Modifies section 1 of the 2000 Act (National Park aims) by adding “economic growth and” to the last sub aim in the list.

Reasons For Opposing 71 – This unnecessarily repeats the emphasis on economic development in the fourth main National Park aim without adding further detail or any nuance (such as economics being underpinned by the need for a liveable climate and healthy biodiversity). The change would detract from the sub aim’s current focus which is on the health and wellbeing of individuals and the prosperity of communities within the area.

Amendment 72 – Sarah Boyack MSP 

Effect: Modifies section 1 of the 2000 Act (National Park aims) by adding further detail to the last sub aim in list with additional focus on supporting provision of housing for people who live and work in the area.

Reasons For Supporting 72 – This adds helpful acknowledgement that National Parks can and must help address housing needs and that appropriate housing provision can help support the prosperity of communities.

Amendment 73 – Sarah Boyack MSP

Effect: Adds a new section following section 2 (National Park proposals) of the 2000 Act requiring Ministers to take expert advice before making formal proposals for new National Parks and amends section 2 to require Ministers to “have regard to” that advice.

Reasons For Supporting 73 – Learning from the process prior to the abandonment of the proposed Galloway Park, this requirement will ensure that new National Park proposals are considered in a measured timescale with expert advice being made available to the Scottish Government and published prior to a formal proposal being made. Importantly, this would help ensure there is a well-conceived proposal with clear Scottish Government support at the point of a proposal being made.

Amendment 32 – Mark Ruskell MSP

Effect: Modifies section 3 of the 2000 Act (Reports on National Park proposals) so that Ministers may appoint a person or body appearing to them to have expertise relevant to the National Park aims (the “reporter”) to consider and report on a National Park proposal.

Reasons For Supporting 32 – The effect is to add flexibility to the appointment of Reporter(s) so that it can be any “Body” or person that Ministers consider has the relevant experience. Currently Scottish Ministers can only appoint Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) or another body. In practice this is a tricky balance to get right but 32 could help to address some concerns over the recent experience of a National Park reporting process. Given that Sarah Boyack’s amendment 73 would ensure there is a well-conceived proposal which has Scottish Government support following expert input, the additional flexibility 32 introduces for appointing Reporters would be helpful.

Amendment 74 – Sarah Boyack MSP

Effect: Minor amendment inserting new line relating to amendment 75.

Reasons For Supporting – As for 75.

Amendment 75 – Sarah Boyack MSP

Effect: Modifies section 35 of the 2000 Act adding a new definition of “cultural development”.

Reasons For Supporting 75 – The term “cultural development” is added to the fourth main National Park aim by this Bill as introduced, but a definition was not included. To encourage focus on delivering the National Park aims rather than discussing interpretation, we support the inclusion of a definition clarifying the term’s scope. At the Stage 2 Committee session the Cabinet Secretary agreed that the inclusion of a definition would be helpful. 

Amendment 76  – Ross Greer MSP, supported by Jackie Baillie MSP

Effect: Modifies section 10 of the 2000 Act by adding a requirement that planning appeals over proposals for major or national developments in National Parks must include a public hearing.

Reasons For Supporting 76 – A similar amendment was put forward at Stage 2 which covered all planning appeals affecting proposed development within National Parks. At committee the Cabinet Secretary made the point that this would be disproportionate in effect as all appeals over local development (eg house extensions) were included.  Amendment 76 addresses this by specifying that ONLY major or National developments would be included. National Park Authorities do not have a record of refusing a higher proportion of planning applications than other planning authorities, but where they do it likely results from perceived conflict with the statutory National Park aims and or the Ministerially approved Park Plan as well as the Development Plan.  Whilst this is likely to involve a small number of appeals these are likely to be of wide public concern and may involve threat to nationally important aspects of Scotland’s natural and/or cultural heritage.

Amendment 77 – Sarah Boyack MSP

Effect: Modifies Section 14 of 2000 Act so that the duty on public bodies and office holders relating to National Park Plans becomes “to actively implement” the Park Plans rather than “to facilitate implementation of”.

Reasons For Supporting 77 – This amendment would underline the primacy of Park Plans, which are developed with public body engagement and Ministerial sign-off. A strengthened duty would help to ensure that the work of the public sector is more strategically aligned within National Parks.  This amendment was discussed at Stage 2, but not moved as the Cabinet Secretary suggested that the rationale for the amendment aligned with the intention behind the Bill as a whole, and that the wording could be discussed further before Stage 3. The Cabinet Secretary expressed concern the amendment might introduce “future legal risk” and said she would provide examples of this concern to MSPs. To our knowledge no such examples have been provided as yet. The amendment is intended to encourage better collaboration on, and delivery of Park Plans by relevant parts of the public sector. It should therefore reduce the potential for public funding to be deployed within National Parks in ways that work against the delivery of agreed Park Plans. We recognise that there might be occasions when the role required of a public body is not first-hand implementation but indirect support (eg an enterprise agency helping to fund desirable activity by another body). It may be that this potential lacuna could be addressed in the guidance on National Park duties that is required under the new Section 5A of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill (as amended at Stage 2). This guidance could recognise that the wording of the duty is to be interpreted as including both active implementation and indirect support that facilitates implementation. We hope that the Scottish Government will commit to producing the National Parks policy statement of which the guidance is a part, within the next parliamentary session.

About SCNP and APRS

SCNP and APRS, have campaigned together for National Parks in Scotland for many years, making the case that Scotland’s beautiful and varied landscapes deserve more recognition and protection. We submitted evidence to the RAIC on Part 3 of the Bill as introduced earlier this year which you can read here. For more information, please contact nikki@aprs.scot or 0131 225 7012.  The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) was the first Act passed by the Scottish Parliament and allowed the designation of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and then the Cairngorms.  The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill aims to “support the protection and restoration of Scotland’s natural environment on which everyone in Scotland depends”.  SCNP and APRS are supportive of changes proposed for Part 3 which will update the 2000 Act to better reflect the current work of the NPs and to strengthen their role in biodiversity and climate outcomes. Additional amendments at Stage 3 that could improve the processes of designating new National Parks and how planning appeals affecting National Park areas are decided are also supported.