Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish Government and local government are constrained in the tools that they have to raise revenue. One tool that could be available to national parks and local authorities would be a visitor levy. I am interested to know what your thinking is on that and how such a levy could be used to invest in cultural assets and visitor experiences. I imagine that, for example, the hundreds of thousands of people who visit Skye each year would probably not baulk at paying a couple of pounds each to support car parks at the fairy pools, better toilet facilities or investment in cultural heritage on the island. What is the Government’s thinking on that? In these straitened times, how do we get visitors who are enjoying Scotland to make that contribution to our communities in a way that can help them to thrive?

I was struck by the comments about sectoral conferences, and I note that Belgium has ministerial conferences. I am interested in that sort of wider conversation; I am not suggesting that we dilute the role of politicians and ministers, but a lot of the legislation that we deal with comes in the form of statutory instruments, which are very technical and are perhaps more for discussion between Government agencies and stakeholders, with agreements made before the legislation is introduced and gets near politicians. How does a wider approach or conversation that has politicians in the mix but which also involves civil servants, agencies and others work, and do we have it in the UK and across these islands?

Jess, do you want to go first?

Those have been interesting responses from you both on the prevention question. It is difficult to see, though, within the RSR, exactly how that preventative approach is being driven through. You talk about culture and about changing how public services are working, but it is hard to see a budget line shifting within health towards culture or wellbeing or whatever.

Is part of the issue about the timescale that the budgets are addressing? It is hard to show the impact of preventative spend within one year; it is probably very hard to show it within three to four years as well. Is there something about needing to take a longer-term look at this, as we have with wider strategies? How do we then frame that within the short-term budgets that we always have to look at, including the RSR?

I will if I can get time back.

I think that the best way to ensure reciprocation would be for us to rejoin the European Union as a fully fledged, independent member state, but we will leave that for another year.

When I lodged amendments to the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill to expand voting and candidacy rights, the Government said that there were concerns. However, now more than ever, we need to take down those barriers. Electoral registration is not a real barrier, as people with limited leave to remain are probably the most heavily verified persons living in the country. It is also clear from the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Foreign Nationals) Bill that it is possible to extend candidacy rights to people with limited leave to remain. Put simply, if we are going to improve candidacy rights for some people, why not improve them for all?

I look forward to the Government’s consultation—it was great to hear the minister announce that today—on expanding rights for all those people whom I met on the doorstep, some of whom I wanted to be able to vote for, so that they not only can vote but potentially stand for election in Scotland. If we continue this process of reform, we will have a better democracy and be a better nation as a result.

I recently spoke on the doorstep with several hundred people in Stirling in the run-up to the council elections. I met people who had come to Scotland to study, as well as people who had now finished studies but had decided to remain to seek work. I met people who had come to Scotland to escape persecution and had been granted refugee status, and people who were still in limbo while seeking asylum. I also met people who had come to Scotland to set up businesses.

When I asked them, the majority of those people had views on many of the local issues that were the subject of debate, from bin collections to the state of housing. Some of them were so engaged on the issues that I would have happily voted for them if they had been standing to be one of my councillors. However, sadly, a large number of those people still believed that they could not vote, let alone stand in elections, and many were not even registered.

The Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 addressed a long-standing democratic deficit whereby thousands of people who had made Scotland their home were unable to vote or stand in elections. However, we are still some distance away from realising that truly residence-based franchise whereby everyone who lives here has the right to vote and stand in Scottish elections and understands their rights.

We also still have the imbalance on age: 16 and 17-year-olds can vote, but they cannot stand for election—although I met a number of young people on the doorstep whom I would have been happy to vote for as well.

The Greens supported the 2020 act but, at the time, I asked the Scottish Government to go further on both voting and candidacy rights, to ensure that people living in Scotland were not prevented from participating in our democracy due to restrictive immigration conditions that had been placed on them by the UK Government. I lodged amendments, and despite some sympathy from across the chamber and from the Government, we were unable to make the changes at that time. Therefore, as it stands, here in Scotland, a person can vote if they have a temporary form of leave to remain, but they cannot stand as a candidate. That falls short of the parity that we want to see in Scotland’s electoral franchise.

The bill goes some way towards fixing the disparity. The legislation will grant expanded candidacy rights to some nationals, but only based on treaties that are agreed by the UK Government with individual states. It is ironic that the expansion of candidacy rights is being triggered by a UK Government that is hellbent on further constricting electoral rights for others by introducing mandatory voter identification and removing the automatic right to voting and candidacy rights that EU nationals enjoyed before Brexit.

Does Martin Whitfield acknowledge that new national parks need careful consideration and that we need to work with communities? I gave the example of a Labour minister not consulting the community, which resulted in a very embarrassing situation that had to be resolved by the introduction of a member’s bill.

Although transport remains the biggest climate emitter, it is clear that the sharp rise in walking and cycling and the decline in aviation and private car use led to huge cuts in emissions in 2020. Transport Scotland’s research into travel trends during the pandemic show us that a new normal for domestic travel is within reach. Does the cabinet secretary believe that demand reduction is important for all polluting modes of travel, including aviation? What plans does the Scottish Government have to establish that new normal?

The debate opens the next chapter in the story of Scotland’s national parks—a story that started with the spirit of John Muir, saw the cry for countryside access after the war, and continued with the birth of the first Scottish national parks in the devolution era under the landmark legislation that was introduced by Ms Boyack. Given the climate and nature emergencies, there has never been a better time to grow and develop our parks and I am delighted that, with Greens in Government, we are able to play our role in helping to write the next chapter.

As a resident of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, I know that communities are at the very heart of our parks and that listening to their voices will be critical in managing our existing parks better and establishing new ones. That is why the national conversation that the minister has announced is so important.

There is a need for parks to do a lot more, including restoring native woodlands at a vast landscape scale and tackling many of the housing issues that have been spoken about already. However, the national parks agenda must also run alongside a more radical land reform agenda that empowers communities directly. I look forward to the forthcoming land reform bill and I hope that in her closing speech the minister, Màiri McAllan, will comment on where the bill is heading.

There are warnings from our national parks story about the need to engage communities meaningfully. For example, with the initial sloppy drawing of the Cairngorms national park boundary, communities in highland Perthshire were ignored. Despite the advice from Scottish Natural Heritage, as it was at the time, the then Scottish Executive pushed ahead in 2003 and excluded Perthshire from the national park.

The community campaign that followed, which was led by the irrepressible Bill Wright, culminated in the infamous twin peaks launch of the Cairngorms national park. On the top of Cairngorm stood Labour minister Allan Wilson at the official park launch, while on the top of Carn Liath stood an unholy alliance of John Swinney, Murdo Fraser, Dennis Canavan, Robin Harper and even me, declaring the right of highland Perthshire to be included in the national park. It took a member’s bill from Mr Swinney, with our cross-party backing, to finally redraw the park boundary. That is a lesson to all ministers from all parties to work closely with communities at the outset.

The pause button on the national parks has been on for two decades now, so it felt like an historic move that, as part of the Bute house agreement negotiations last year, I and my colleagues were able to put new national parks back on the table again. I am delighted that our new minister, Lorna Slater, is now responsible for the delivery.

The community campaigns for new parks have never stopped, and the work of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks has been critical in keeping that flame alive. Its 2013 report on options is a great starting point, although it is not exhaustive. I recently ran a very unscientific poll on Twitter to gauge support for its initial seven options. I found that Galloway, Ben Nevis/Glen Coe/Black Mount and a potential marine and coastal park are very popular options. Given the success of the Jurassic coast national park in Dorset, I am really attracted to the idea of a marine and coastal park for Argyll and Mull. However, I certainly recognise the strong cross-party political support in this Parliament that is behind Galloway. It reinforces the point that national parks are strong economic drivers and that the position of Galloway, being easily accessible to northern England, could provide a really strong domestic tourism offering.

However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that national parks are there to conserve and enhance the natural world as much as they are there to enable our enjoyment. The Sandford principle—that, where there is unmanageable conflict between public use and conservation, the environment must come first—is as important today as it was when national parks were first conceived in the UK. That will continue to raise difficult decisions that, again, need the input of communities to get right.

For example, the introduction of camping management zones in the Trossachs sparked strong debate and, I think, a genuine concern that our fundamental rights to wild camp were being eroded. In reality, however, the damage that we saw at first hand to the lochsides, for example at Loch Venachar, needed a strong response to stop the destruction, and from what I can see, it has worked without becoming a wider precedent.

Ultimately, better facilities for campers will help to manage impact. I certainly urge ministers to look in particular at how a visitor levy could help parks to fund facilities that will help people to keep coming back, including better toilet facilities, camping areas and extra rangers.

Of course, park authorities always need to strike a careful balance. As the Flamingo Land proposal for Loch Lomond rears its head again, decision makers need to go back to that Sandford principle and ask the fundamental question: “Does it get the conservation balance right?” To my mind, Flamingo Land does not, and must be thrown out again.

As my former colleague Robin Harper put it, in 2020:

“The setting up of National Parks twenty years ago must be the beginning of a process, not an end in itself. We need to see our countryside as a place where biodiversity and the environment are enhanced—our rural communities and their survival are essential to the conservation of wild Scotland.”

That must be the theme of the next chapter in Scotland’s national parks story, and I look forward very much to seeing new parks in Scotland.

It is great to hear how you are harnessing that energy from citizens. We can certainly learn from that here in Scotland.

I will also ask you about your sustainability goals, which I think have been in place for a long time now. How do those influence policy making? Do you have a sustainability framework that you apply to policies? How do those goals influence the individual discussions that politicians and others are having?