Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Official Report 636KB pdf

---

Hill Tracks (Scottish Uplands)

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-6227, in the name of Peter Peacock, on hill tracks in the Scottish uplands. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the number of engineered hill tracks appearing in the Scottish uplands, particularly in the Highlands; notes that such tracks can be constructed without planning consent when justified as being for agricultural, forestry or repair purposes; further notes the growing number of concerns from hill walkers, ramblers and mountaineers and members of the wider public about the intrusion of these tracks into the natural landscape and the impact on otherwise wild land; considers that, given the importance of the Scottish uplands for current and future generations, this warrants greater scrutiny of proposals for such tracks within the planning system; recognises the legitimate rights of farmers and crofters to continue to construct tracks for their purposes on what will generally be lower-lying land than considered to be a problem in this context; notes that Heriot-Watt University reported on these issues in March 2007, and would welcome the urgent mapping of tracks by reviewing current knowledge of track location and control provisions and consideration of future possibilities for greater control of developing hill tracks and the criteria under which any greater controls might operate.

17:02

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on a topic that is of great importance to many thousands of people throughout Scotland. I am grateful, too, for the cross-party support for the motion, which has allowed the debate to happen.

As a young man, not so many years ago, I moved to the Highlands to pursue my love of climbing, although children and, principally, politics intervened. Therefore, I have a strong appreciation of why thousands of Scots head to the mountains every weekend or on weekdays in increasing numbers to enjoy the beauty and wildness of our mountains. My intention in this debate is to gain greater recognition of developments that threaten the mountain environment that so many people appreciate. I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Government will move to ensure that there will be greater public scrutiny of proposed hill tracks in the future and that the land will have greater protection than it has today.

Over the years, as a representative of the Highlands and Islands, I have received a lot of representations from concerned constituents about the sudden and unannounced appearance of hill tracks intruding into the scenery that they enjoy or the mountain environment that they regularly explore. About a year ago, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland made clear to me what it perceives to be an increasing incidence of bulldozed hill tracks and expressed the growing and deep concern of its members. The John Muir Trust, the Ramblers Association Scotland, the North East Mountain Trust and others have supported the campaign that Sarah Boyack and I started with the Mountaineering Council of Scotland. Between them, those organisations represent many thousands of Scots who visit our mountains regularly, and it is good to have representatives of those organisations in the public gallery tonight. Their briefings for the debate, which members will have received, testify to the significance and scale of some of the developments that are now scarring our wild land.

I know of Scottish Natural Heritage’s concern about what it has described as the proliferation of such tracks and the decline in the amount of Scottish land that is not intruded into in some way by development. There is evidence from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that poorly constructed tracks can have adverse impacts on our water courses and water quality. There are clear examples of that having happened.

Because of the availability of modern earthmoving machinery, modern hill tracks are not small or narrow creations; they are wide—many of them are wider than the single-track roads that are common in the Highlands and Islands—and can be cut extremely deeply into the hillside. As a result of our changing climate, there can be much more heavy and intense rainfalls from time to time, which scour out those tracks and the hillside around them, causing more damage than the tracks alone have already caused.

To date, almost 2,500 people have signed the online petition that was set up to call for greater planning controls on the development of unregulated vehicle tracks. That is a clear signal of the depth of feeling that exists across Scotland on this issue. I know that members have received e-mails from many people who have signed that petition, asking them to take an interest in the issue, and I am glad that many members have done so. Tonight’s debate is about whether the Government and the Parliament will listen and act to better protect our wild land for future generations.

The issue of hill tracks and planning law is complex. Currently, hill tracks can be constructed without gaining planning consent or notifying the local authority when it can be argued that they are for purposes relating to agriculture, forestry or repair—all of which fall under the category of permitted development rights in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. Rightly, there are restrictions on development within national scenic areas, special areas of conservation, special protected areas and sites of special scientific interest. However, there is an astonishing anomaly: national park status does not confer those same restrictions. It is quite possible for hill tracks to appear in national park areas without any public scrutiny of the process whatsoever. Permissions might be required for quite small developments in those parks and elsewhere in our country, but not for those large and intrusive developments.

There is also the issue of people who are not engaged in genuine agricultural work, but who use that as a convenient label. I make it clear that I have no interest in pursuing an agenda that places an additional legislative burden upon the many farmers who predominantly work our lower ground and hill farms. My concern is for our uplands and our higher and highest ground, and we need to address immediately the situation whereby a landowner can use permitted development rights to construct a track on such ground simply by claiming agricultural usage. Why would a landowner approach a local planning authority for permission to build a vehicle track to enhance the experience of their sporting clients when they can argue that the track is for agricultural use?

Within the current operational frameworks, there is an ambiguity and a lack of clarity in definitions surrounding hill tracks. That was raised in Heriot-Watt University’s report on its review of the general permitted development order, which was commissioned by the previous Scottish Executive. The report, which was published in March 2007, made a number of observations about permitted development in general and about hill tracks in Scotland. It said that the definitions of hill tracks and private ways and of what constituted agricultural use were unclear. It suggested that hill tracks should be subject to planning applications, although some smaller tracks might be allowed to be created under the permitted development order. It stated that there was a need to distinguish between the maintenance and repair of tracks and the improvement of tracks. It also recommended that all national parks should be given the higher protection of national scenic area status.

It is clear that the report’s recommendations are worthy of consideration. What is less clear is the Government’s response to the report and to the wider issues. Three years have passed since the report was published, but my colleagues and I have not forgotten it.

A year or so ago, the minister and I corresponded about when the review of permitted development rights would be under way. He said that he hoped that it would take place in 2009, and that he would decide at that point whether hill tracks would be included in the review. In January this year, in a parliamentary answer, he told me that he had pushed that into 2010. I hope that he can assure me tonight that there will be no further delay, and that it is now time for action on this issue. I also hope that we will be able to find a cross-party consensus on the importance of the issue.

It is imperative that the Government concludes the review of permitted development rights, including how they relate to hill tracks, and takes seriously the Heriot-Watt recommendations. The Government should act to require those highly intrusive tracks to be the subject of full and proper public scrutiny within the planning system. I look forward to what the minister has to say about that in his response to this debate.

17:09

I congratulate Peter Peacock on bringing the debate to the chamber. I was concerned when he raised the issue in the fashion that he did that his argument was going to concern wild land only, and his speech emphasised that to some extent. I am conscious that many economic activities that took place in the past and which will exist in the future cross or use wild land.

Overgrazing by sheep and deer is a form of upland usage that I hope we are now getting in hand. When questions about the use of and access to land for activities such as shooting are debated, I hark back to the halcyon days when shooting parties travelled on sturdy Highland garrons and did not need the deep rutted tracks that have been created. However, I recognise that farmers and crofters need to have access to the land.

My concern in this debate is to consider the ecosystem services to which the John Muir Trust has referred. As some members will know, I have been active in examining the preservation and the wetting and rewetting of peat. The type of tracks that we are discussing often involve the destruction of peatlands on a large scale. Given that we are talking about including the targets for peat conservation in our climate change targets, we must ensure that that argument is brought to bear when we discuss the cutting of large tracks into the hills and beyond.

The planning permissions that Peter Peacock mentioned need to be reviewed. I hope that the minister will help us in that regard. It seems surprising that that aspect was not addressed when the national parks legislation was being put together. I hope that that can be done. I am just sorry that members who have an interest in that aspect did not seek to address it when the orders were going through Parliament to extend the Cairngorms national park, which most members welcomed. Perhaps the national parks can be included in planning permissions in some way through secondary legislation.

If we are to value land, we must come together on a land use strategy—most members agree on that. We must recognise that some people’s view of what is wild land is not acceptable to those of us who live in the countryside. Although many people use wild land for recreation, we should not confuse wild land with land that has not been affected by the hand of humans—and most land in Scotland has been affected by human hands, however far away it is from a road. On that point, I depart from the John Muir Trust’s view of wild land, and I recognise that we need a balanced land use policy that takes into account all legitimate needs.

I hope that the debate maintains that balance, because if we are to value land, we should allow for some means by which the people who use it can contribute. Given the demise of shooting rates under the Tory Government in 1996, perhaps some type of valuation of land for users of that sort could be reintroduced to help with the planning process and to help us to ensure that there is balanced land use in the future.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and if I may I will excuse myself before it ends.

17:14

I refer members to my agricultural interests in the register of members’ interests.

The Scottish Conservatives recognise that in recent years there has been an increase in the demand for new tracks in the Scottish uplands. Some of the demand is due to traditional activities, but additional demand is often associated with the development of wind farms and telecommunications infrastructure, including mobile phone networks.

From a personal angle, I have to say that after I constructed a new hill road on my hill sheep farm in 1985, the management of livestock improved dramatically and the death rate for livestock fell considerably. Nobody complained about it.

As the average age of farmers increases, it becomes more important that they have vehicle access to the hills.

I have the honour of being president of Highland Disabled Ramblers. Hill roads afford disabled and elderly people the chance to go into the hills that they love and that they should surely be allowed to appreciate just as much as do fit hillwalkers and mountaineers. I agree that huge scars on mountainsides are very unsightly, but I grew up on Loch Awe directly opposite the Cruachan dam, and I tell members that the huge road to the dam, which was complained about avidly during its construction, is now difficult to see. Nature heals scars just as a body heals wounds. I am sure that we all share the desire to have a thriving rural economy, and, as a result, I believe that an overriding principle should be a recognition of the needs of farmers and land managers and an aversion to placing on them yet more red tape and bureaucracy unless every option has been exhausted.

Many of the original tracks were pony tracks for bringing in cut peats and venisons, and as technology has advanced the tracks have been widened to allow access for quad bikes and vehicles. That is just progress. I see no reason why that should affect the flora and fauna of a hill region any more than does quad bikes or Argocats taking different routes across the same area. Originally, the tracks were hand dug at a time when there were plenty of people to carry out that work, but they still left scars.

Will the member give way?

I ask the member to hold on a minute.

In its briefing, NFU Scotland urges MSPs to recognise the importance of hill tracks to land management, especially in getting feed to starving animals in hard winters, such as the one that we have just had. There is no doubt that hill roads saved the lives of many farm animals last winter. Access is vital not only for feeding but for gathering, especially in an age in which it is getting more and more difficult to find enough manpower and good sheepdogs to perform such operations. The NFUS also makes the point that hill tracks are in the public interest, as they enable land managers to manage more efficiently. If we take that into account, the benefits to the environment and local economy become clear.

Will the member give way?

If the member does not mind, I would rather not at the moment.

Upland tracks serve a combination of purposes, including the management and welfare of upland grazing livestock, forestry work, deerstalking, angling, habitat management, adventure tourism, muirburn and mountain rescue. Hill tracks are also immensely useful for transporting people to the myriad hill lochs in Scotland for brown trout fishing. Indeed, that underused facility could be used far more.

Given that the purpose of many of the bulldozed tracks relates to telecommunications and windfarms, they are already covered by the planning system. In addition, with good construction methods, the look of new tracks can dramatically improve within months.

We recognise that the uplands are a sensitive and valued part of Scotland’s natural heritage. No one loves being in the hills more than I do—preferably at the top of them, and I believe that the tracks can help in that respect. As a result, we support the current approach to the management of hill tracks, including observing codes of good practice, such as SNH’s “Constructed tracks in the Scottish Uplands”, which, as its name suggests, aims to reduce the impact of tracks on the natural heritage of the Scottish uplands. Indeed, that is the aim of all sensible farmers and land managers.

Will the member give way?

May I take an intervention, Presiding Officer?

You are running out of time, Mr McGrigor.

I will come to an end, then.

I very much respect Peter Peacock’s concern for our wild places, but I am interested to know which particular tracks concern him. When I drove from Caithness to Edinburgh the other day, only one ugly scar, near Drumochter, caught my eye. The Scottish Government itself is supporting the development of new and improved tracks through a number of its rural support schemes. Except in the case of major projects, we do not feel that planning permission should be required for what are basically farm tracks.

17:19

First, I congratulate Peter Peacock on securing the debate. His motion addresses an important issue and I am happy to speak in support of it.

I am privileged to represent an area that includes part of the Cairngorms. Many of my constituents are keen hillwalkers; indeed, the North East Mountain Trust represents more than 1,000 hillwalkers and climbers in the north-east of Scotland, and I am grateful to those who have taken the time to write to me with their concerns about hill tracks.

Scotland is indeed blessed. We have magnificent wild land that is valued by many people—locals and tourists alike. However, it is under threat. SNH has reported that the extent of Scotland that is unaffected by any visual influence declined from 41 per cent to 31 per cent between 2002 and 2008. In the north-east, one threat is the proliferation of bulldozed hill tracks. The bulldozing of tracks for agriculture, forestry and, in particular, sport has led to scars across the hills that are often visible over a wide area. They are also prone to erosion. I query whether the continuation of such unrestricted development is in the best interests of the environment. As the John Muir Trust has said, because hill tracks fall into the category of permitted development, no record is kept of their number, total distance, location, purpose, condition or rate of change. Surely that should not be sustained.

I do not suggest that hill tracks are not needed. They are, of course, important for essential land management and they allow ease of access for farmers. Farmers, crofters and foresters have a legitimate need to construct, maintain and develop tracks for their land management purposes. However, such tracks are usually on lower-lying ground, as Peter Peacock said. Concern is felt that loopholes in the current system are being exploited to the detriment of our special environment.

Tracks must be designed to fit into the landscape in which they are needed; they should not obliterate existing paths or historic trackways, and their design should minimise the need for engineering and road-related earthworks. Drawing hill tracks into a more affirmative planning approval system would assist with that. A scheme should be developed that takes a light-touch approach to the obvious necessities of agriculture, but which tightens rules that we think are being abused.

In some areas that have special designations, such as national scenic areas, special areas of conservation and SSSIs, the planning authority’s prior approval should be sought. However, even now, the hill tracks campaign has identified several areas in which that does not seem to have been done appropriately. I share Peter Peacock’s concern and bewilderment that national parks are not drawn into that system.

I do not doubt that a review of permitted development rights for hill tracks is overdue. I agree that the suggestion of developing a register of existing hill tracks has merit. I hope that cross-party agreement will be achieved tonight on the need to undertake that review and to have the discussion to protect our wild land for future generations.

17:22

I thank Peter Peacock for lodging the motion. I suppose that I have an interest to declare, in that I wrote the entry in the “Oxford Dictionary of National Biography” on the historian James Bryce, who was the first to propose an Access to Mountains (Scotland) Bill. That bill was defeated in the 1880s by deerstalking interests, but was the forerunner of the access that we now enjoy, and of what could be called the overaccess that some tracks provide.

About 25 years ago, I crossed the pass in Wester Ross that separates Achnashellach from Torridon. I remember that, when I was at the summit, I strayed 100yd eastwards to escape the midges. That was not difficult, as the surface is of great stone slabs of almost billiard-table smoothness. There, I discovered something that amazed and still amazes me. At the centre of one slab was an indentation, and at its centre was a spherical boulder that was a bit smaller than a football. It was possible—only just—to lift it, and if it had been allowed to trundle down the rest of the slabs, something that had been there since at least the last great ice age and for possibly 10,000 to 30,000 years would have been disturbed. That gives a sense of how remote the Scottish Highlands are and how much they are an empty quarter, as John Buchan would have called it, of the human mind.

However, such isolation is breaking down. As Alison McInnes said, the quarter has dropped in size by a quarter in the past decade. That is partly because of wind farms but also because of our prioritisation of mobility, from the trail biker to the quad biker and the four-by-four. A track that is blasted and bulldozed to allow for the power of all-terrain vehicles will be unsurfaced and, in that sense, temporary. I have seen—I speak more from experience in the Alps—heavy rains erode a surface so that it becomes a watercourse and its floods accumulate in ditches. Over time, such a track becomes as impassable and as subject to landslips as are the whin and heather around it—indeed, far more so.

The additional traffic that hill roads generate is passed on to our inheritance of common roads, whose condition is frequently near catastrophic through overuse, as members remarked in the earlier debate on cycling. The hill tracks campaign has rightly expressed concern about the increased construction of tracks, particularly for vehicular use. Those concerns are by no means aimed against the legitimate rights of crofters, farmers and forestry workers. The issue becomes problematic when uplands are involved with no restriction or control over the nature of the construction.

Way back at the beginning of the last century, the Liberal politician Charles Masterman called the United Kingdom “landlords’ country”, whereas much of the continent over it was peasant country that confronted the visitor. There was a dense network of routes between farms, crofts and the like that could easily be turned over to use by cyclists and pedestrians. There is a need for more byway construction in the Highlands. That takes up the point that was made in the earlier debate on active travel about access for bicycles and pedestrians when main roads are often congested and dangerous. We should follow the example of the continental countries that accommodate cyclists, riders and walkers on such field ways. There is a network of those between France and Germany and in the alpine areas.

It is not only the construction of such paths or more careful regulation that we ought to bear in mind. We must also remember that, within a decade, we might have to live with oil at $200 a barrel, when in 2000 it was $10. As with this afternoon’s debate on active travel, that ought to concentrate the mind wonderfully on the country that we want to live in, and if possible move in, in a decade or so.

17:27

I congratulate Peter Peacock on his motion on what is an interesting and important subject. As somebody who is still on occasion an active hillwalker and who has climbed just over half the Munros—I will get there eventually, I hope, if I am spared and well—I share many of the concerns that Peter Peacock raises about intrusions in the Scottish landscape. We should be concerned when there are intrusions of that nature into our wild land, which is a precious asset to us in Scotland. The Highlands of Scotland represent the last wilderness, certainly in western Europe, and perhaps further afield.

We must recognise that people who come to Scotland and the Highlands come predominantly because they want to see our landscape. We need to remember that the tourism industry in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands, is our most important one. People come to see an unspoiled landscape—they do not come for the weather and, despite the fact that we have some very good restaurants, they do not come for the food. They do not come because it is cheap. They come because we offer landscape and heritage, so we should be careful not to put either of those at risk.

I share many of the concerns that have been raised about intrusions into the landscape, but I will qualify that in two ways. First, there must be a balance, because, just as there is a legitimate concern on the part of recreational and landscape groups about intrusions into the rural landscape, those who derive a living from the land also have a legitimate interest in being able to do so without being unduly hampered by legislation. In that respect, I agree with many of the comments of my colleague Sir Jamie McGrigor. I read with interest the briefing notes that were provided by NFU Scotland and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association.

We must remember that the economies of many of our upland areas are fragile. Hill farming is in a precarious state and the economies of many of our sporting estates are not much better. Our sporting estates, for all that they are viewed as a rich man’s paradise, sustain a level of employment in many remote and rural areas that would not otherwise be possible. We should be careful not to put up barriers to people deriving an economic living from those remote areas.

Does Murdo Fraser accept that some estates agree that there should be no hill tracks over 2,000ft, where regeneration is virtually impossible after however many decades? Does he further agree that the scree left at the side of the bulldozed tracks does not allow for fast regeneration?

Maureen Watt makes a perfectly reasonable point. As I said a moment ago, it is a question of balance and trying to ensure that one set of interests does not override another.

My second and final point is about perspective. Although it is true that hill roads intrude on the rural landscape, there are much greater intrusions. I refer to the proliferation of the industrial structures—the wind turbines and associated pylons—that are being constructed all over upland Scotland. Members will know of my interest in that subject, which I have spoken about over many years, not least in relation to the consent given to the Beauly to Denny power line. It seems to me that those who complain vociferously about hill tracks without having too much to say about wind turbines or pylons are disobeying the biblical injunction not to strain at gnats while swallowing camels. When most people look at our rural landscape, they find 400ft-high wind turbines on our hills far more intrusive than the odd hill track at ground level, which is probably not visible from terribly far away. Indeed, as Jamie McGrigor pointed out, many of the wind turbine and pylon construction projects require hill tracks to be constructed, albeit with planning permission. Those projects are responsible for many of the hill tracks that cause offence.

With those qualifications in mind, I say to Peter Peacock that I would be nervous about supporting his call to bring all hill tracks within the remit of planning permission but, nevertheless, I welcome his giving us the opportunity to discuss these important subjects this evening.

17:32

I congratulate Peter Peacock on securing tonight’s debate. The debate so far shows that hill tracks can be an issue. Peter Peacock and I have taken the opportunity during the summer recess to look at some of the areas where one can see the impact of badly designed hill tracks. I understand absolutely, and take the point from several colleagues, that we need a system that farmers and crofters can live with. They have to be able to manage their land effectively and support the economic activity that they carry out.

Christopher Harvie’s analysis of the situation was spot on: it is a question of balance. In response to Murdo Fraser’s final point about wind farms, I say that the whole point is that hill tracks should be brought under the planning system, which would provide an opportunity for democratic accountability and to say, “No, we don’t accept this development,” as has happened with many wind farm proposals. Where new tracks are accepted, there will be the potential to mitigate their impact in relation to issues such as peat and access. That is at the heart of the discussion.

We need to look at the cumulative impact, which has been raised by several organisations, because there is not sufficient monitoring of the situation. As Alison McInnes pointed out, we are losing the features that make people want to holiday in the Highlands and Islands. There is a lack of enforcement—that point was put very well by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. This is not a new issue. It has not just popped on to our agenda; it has been out there for several years, which is one of the reasons why it came up in the Heriot-Watt study, and it needs to be addressed.

Let us look at the recommendations from Heriot-Watt. There are ways of managing the situation that would not be excessively onerous on land managers. One recommendation is to develop a comprehensive register of hill tracks so that we can monitor and evaluate the impact on the landscape, as well as the ecological condition of hill tracks. That point was well made by Maureen Watt. We should have a system of prior notification—

Will the member give way?

I ask Jamie McGrigor to let me continue. He did not take any interventions in his speech and I have a pile to get through.

Let us look at the recommendations and examine what opportunities could come from them. To deal with the impact of mobile phone masts, we use a system of prior notification, which is a way of bringing a development into the planning system without automatically introducing onerous requirements. That is a balanced approach that should be considered for hill tracks. Another recommendation is to have a voluntary code of conduct that would reflect the best techniques and practice out there. We would look at what SNH recommends and encourage people to follow that best practice.

Therefore, there are ways of looking for best practice. The John Muir Trust has made the point that it is a landowner and it is aware of the opportunities for good land management. There is a lot of best practice that we could consider.

Peter Peacock outlined the problems that have been raised with us. I emphasise that issues such as erosion and impacts particularly in the higher altitudes where biodiversity is fragile and takes years to recover are important and need to be considered. Ramblers Scotland has considered fencing and its impact on access. The debate lets us consider really difficult issues. There are balances to be struck, and some of the issues are controversial, but that should not mean that we should not examine them. I hope that the minister will say when he will put in place the review that was suggested three years ago. The issue has been on the go for a long time. We have had a members’ business debate on it and there is a live petition on it. That should lead to action.

There are no hill tracks in my constituency, but members would be amazed by how many thousands of people go from our cities to our rural communities because they love our rural landscapes. People love our wild land and landscapes that are not quite as wild but are still exciting. Such things are a fantastic release from the city, which is why hundreds of thousands of tourists visit Scotland. If we do not value and monitor our landscapes, we could lose a fantastic part of Scotland’s character. We should be concerned about that.

It is a pity that Rob Gibson, who spoke about national parks, has left the chamber. The point of the last ministerial commitment to a national parks review was that we could pick up precisely such issues and have a proper look at their impact on the national parks.

The issue has been raised and a warning has been sounded. I hope that ministers will listen and act.

17:36

I join other members in thanking Peter Peacock for bringing the important issue of hill tracks in the Scottish uplands to Parliament. Several members have said that the issue has been around for a few years. It may be worth making the point that, as long ago as 1984, a study by Watson demonstrated that there were 1,151km of new vehicle tracks in the Grampians alone between 1960 and 1982.

The achievement of the appropriate balance between aesthetics, environmental impacts and the economic needs of those who live and work in our remote and upland areas has run through the debate. It is right that those things should be focused on. Sarah Boyack in particular rightly left open the option of dealing with the issue in a range of ways. Some of us thought that Arthur’s Seat lies in her constituency, although we are open to correction if we have not properly understood where the boundaries are. The topic can be relevant even in areas in the centres of our cities. We should not think that we are talking simply about the top of the Cairngorms, west Sutherland or our remote areas.

Peter Peacock rightly referred to the substantial alliance of interests—the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, the John Muir Trust, Ramblers Scotland and others—that value our open country. Of course, a balance must be struck even there. The proportion of Scotland that is now within reach of vehicular transport is much greater than it used to be. That is a benefit for those who exercise access rights in our countryside, but it potentially comes at a cost, of course.

Peter Peacock said that there is ambiguity in the current arrangements. That is absolutely correct. The issue is not simply a planning and permitted development rights issue. It is not particularly well known that, by law, most hill tracks should be subject to environmental impact assessments.

One thing that the Government is seeking to do is to engage with the owners of land where such tracks have been constructed to ensure that they have a better understanding of the legal requirements. Confusingly, depending on the use to which land is put, two separate regimes apply—the effect is similar, but the regimes are different. In essence, any track of over 1km requires an environmental impact assessment. It is fair to say that that is neither as widely known about nor as widely implemented as it should be. That is why we are looking for that engagement.

Jamie McGrigor suggested that nature heals scars. As Maureen Watt said—the point was acknowledged by Sarah Boyack—the higher up into the hills we go, the harder the healing process. We are talking about land that is essentially sub-arctic territory, which is fragile indeed. The scars of many years back will remain for a long time into the future. We need to ensure that we protect that landscape.

Like other members, Alison McInnes spoke about national park powers. It is fair to say that no direct reference is made in the national parks legislation to the subject of debate, but that does not exclude in any sense whatever the designation of land in our national parks as scenic areas. Designation gives us the ability to achieve the protection that we seek by bringing land back inside the planning system. In the short term, designation is an option for national park areas. I am not promoting that approach as a substitute for a more systematic look at the issue, but it means that things can be done in the short term.

As ever, Christopher Harvie was truly eccentric. I suspect that the stone that he found on top of the hill was, in geological terms, precisely that—an eccentric brought from one place to another by the actions of the last ice age. Of course, I was not there; I did not see his stone.

Murdo Fraser made the point that hill roads are obtrusive. I find it passing strange that he continues to have concerns about a project that will reduce the number of pylons between Beauly and Denny and replace the existing pylons with those that are designed to be more unobtrusive—

They will be higher.

—albeit that they will, of course, be higher. Colour, placing and design are important in the process. That opens up the general point about the need to achieve balance.

Sarah Boyack suggested that a voluntary code of conduct could be of some interest. It is one of a range of ways in which we might seek to improve the situation.

I turn to what the Government is going to do. We are working on permitted development rights. In light of the considerable correspondence and discussion that Ms Boyack and I have had on extending them to microgeneration, I know that she is in principle in favour of them. They are intrinsically a good intervention in the planning system. We are looking at a range of ways in which to regularise, systematise and simplify the operation of permitted development rights in relation to hill tracks. We also want to ensure a wider understanding of the need for environmental impact assessments and a consistent way of applying them to sites of special scientific interest, Natura sites and our remote areas in general. There are also issues in relation to scheduled ancient monuments on our hills, in which Historic Scotland would be involved. Finally, Scottish Natural Heritage is about to make further efforts to promote guidance to land managers and contractors. We expect to bring forward our next thoughts on the subject immediately after the summer recess. We are working on that.

Again, I thank Peter Peacock for giving the chamber the opportunity to debate in a quite consensual and informed way a very important subject for people right across Scotland.

Meeting closed at 17:44.