łÉČËżěĘÖ

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 13 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 401 contributions

|

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

I know that we were slightly repeating ourselves there, but it is an important point. We could go through the purposes line by line, but that is maybe not the point that we should be focusing on. There is a bigger point here.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

It is an interesting question. As the convener mentioned, we visited Cairngorm national park earlier this week, and the subject of biodiversity credits came up. I struggle to get my head around carbon credits, let alone biodiversity credits. What impact will biodiversity credits have? That vehicle could be a significant driver of private investment, could it not? How does the idea of biodiversity credits work alongside the setting of statutory biodiversity targets?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

My first thought was about councils. You are probably right that there are broader organisations, although I can imagine local authorities being particularly affected.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

Do you see how that could be quite scary for some public bodies? What does it mean in practice? Would a financial contribution or a time commitment be required? How would they do that, given the possible competing priorities?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

Fair enough—very good. That point was picked up by a lot of local people, and I would have thought that, if you are going to drive forward your climate and biodiversity aims, you will have to do that with local people in mind.

The bill seeks to upgrade the duty on relevant public bodies with a change in the wording from “have regard to” to “facilitate the implementation of”. As a former councillor, I am aware that councils—there are other public bodies, of course—such as Moray Council and Aberdeenshire Council, in the Cairngorms national park, would fall within that, and they would have huge responsibilities even though there is a massive lack of funding and not a lot of staff resource to put into such things. How do you see that change working? What is your initial feeling about it? What would it really mean in practice?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

Are there any prior examples of the Sandford principle being put in place?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

Elspeth Macdonald has pretty much answered this, but does anyone else have thoughts on the impact of the changes on other marine users?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

What was not there previously? You are right that any council or local person could have fed into a national park plan through a consultation process, so why is the change necessary?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

Thank you all for your interesting answers—the subject came up significantly in committee last week and I want to be clear in my mind that, by not allowing powers, we are not restricting what we need to do for biodiversity, climate change and so on. I do not think that any of us would want to see that.

My main question was going to be on the purposes for which the regulations could be changed but, to be absolutely clear, do all of you agree that it is not about the purposes that are set out in the policy memorandum but about the fact that, fundamentally, the power should not be there? Does that make sense? Dan, you mentioned the various purposes that the Government sets out in the policy memorandum, such as ensuring consistency or compatibility with other legal regimes or taking account of changes in technology and so on, but would you not add to or amend those purposes?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 14 May 2025

Tim Eagle

Let us go back to the points that Bruce Wilson and Nick Hesford made. My worry—which the convener picked up on, too—is that the aspect that we are discussing is listed in subsection (2)(f), which talks about the local community and the economic development of national parks. One of the early criticisms when the bill was published was about the fact that a national park is surely at its best when we recognise the people who live and work within it and the fact that, although the aims are not listed in order of priority, when people see a list, they automatically think, “We’re down at the bottom, so all the other stuff is more important.”

Are you concerned about that at all? You mentioned the Sandford principle. I may not know it well enough, but the principle is that conservation will take priority over public enjoyment of the park, is it not?