On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek to raise a point of order under rule 13.2 of Parliament’s standing orders, which provides for ministerial statements to be subject to questioning by members. Although that rule ensures the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, I am concerned that such scrutiny is being undermined by the manner in which the Scottish Government is handling the forthcoming announcement on a possible Galloway and Ayrshire national park.
Specifically, the Government has indicated that there will be a ministerial statement today to set out ministers’ response to a report submitted by NatureScot on the proposal for a Galloway national park. That report was submitted to ministers on 5 May and follows a public consultation process that closed in February 2025. Despite that consultation having closed more than three months ago, neither the NatureScot report nor the consultation responses have been published by the Government or by NatureScot ahead of today’s statement. That is despite the clear impression being given that the NatureScot report would be available and despite the fact that consultation responses could be made available—at no doubt considerable cost to the taxpayer—if subject to a freedom of information request.
Such withholding of information stands in contrast to normal practice, in which consultation responses and an accompanying analysis are typically published in advance of any ministerial response, enabling members to consider the evidence and to engage in informed questioning.
In this case, members will be expected to respond to the cabinet secretary’s announcement without having seen any of the underlying evidence that informed her decision. Such a lack of transparency raises serious questions about compliance with the spirit, if not the letter, of rule 13.2 of standing orders. Without access to the relevant documents, Parliament cannot properly exercise its duty to scrutinise the cabinet secretary’s decision.
Deputy Presiding Officer, will you advise whether it is compatible with standing orders, particularly rule 13.2 on ministerial statements, for a minister to make a statement in Parliament and then take questions when members have been denied access to the key materials on which that statement is based, and which could have been publicly available for some time? Will you raise the matter with the Scottish Government to ensure that future statements, especially those that are made following a formal consultation process, are handled in a way that enables full and meaningful scrutiny by members?
Thank you for that point of order, Mr Smyth. The Presiding Officer has made clear her expectations on what good practice looks like, as regards the Government keeping Parliament informed about statements. I note that the cabinet secretary will have heard what you said. She might wish to reflect on that when she responds to members’ questions in due course.
I will take some time to reflect on whether I, or the Presiding Officer, can add anything to what I have just said. However, I welcome the fact that the point of order is now on the record.
We now come to the statement by Mairi Gougeon on the Galloway and Ayrshire national park proposal. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:56
In 2021, the Scottish Government proposed the designation of at least one new national park in Scotland by 2026, subject to legal conditions being met. That proposal was debated in Parliament in June 2022 and was strongly supported by all parties, with several members calling for the Government to designate new parks as quickly as possible and some describing Galloway as
“a national park in waiting”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2022; c 33; 65.]
In October 2023, the Scottish Government issued a public call to local communities and organisations across Scotland to submit nominations for their area to become Scotland’s next national park. Detailed guidance on the nomination and appraisal process was published following a public consultation on the appraisal criteria. Nominations were received for five areas: Galloway and Ayrshire; Lochaber; Loch Awe; the Scottish Borders; and Tay forest. The nomination process demonstrated the outstanding natural and cultural heritage that we have in Scotland, as well as people’s ambitions for the rural communities in which they live.
In spring 2024, the five nominations were appraised by an expert panel, and the Galloway and Ayrshire bid was selected to be subject to further investigation. Its proposal highlighted the area’s diverse landscapes and stunning coastline, its outstanding biodiversity and its rich natural and cultural assets. It also made a strong case for the benefits that national park status could bring to local communities, the local economy and the environment, by demonstrating what it could achieve for nature and people.
On 22 July 2024, the Scottish Government proposed the designation of Scotland’s third national park in Galloway and south and east Ayrshire, subject to legal conditions being met. However, at that time, we were clear that the proposal required further investigation and consultation with local people and businesses. Those steps have been crucial in order to gauge the level of support and to understand people’s views on more detailed aspects, including whether a national park could best meet the needs of the area and its communities.
NatureScot was appointed as the statutory reporter, to carry out the investigation, undertake a public consultation and report to the Scottish Government, as specified in the national parks legislation. Following an initial period of engagement with local communities, public bodies and stakeholders, NatureScot ran a 14-week consultation process from 7 November 2024 until 14 February 2025. More than 5,000 surveys were completed and more than 1,000 people attended events held across Galloway and south and east Ayrshire. The public events were independently facilitated by Outside the Box, which is an organisation with expertise in running community consultation events in an impartial, open and welcoming way. Sector-led consultation meetings took place with representatives from the farming, forestry, tourism, renewables and conservation sectors. NatureScot also held meetings with the three local authorities concerned and with community councils.
There has proven to be huge public interest in the proposal, which has generated both strong support and strong opposition. At times, the debate has become quite heated. That is understandable given how passionately people feel about their local area and the positive changes that they want to see.
It was extremely important that everyone with an interest had an opportunity to have their say on the proposal, and I thank all those who took part in the discussions, got involved in the process and responded to the consultation. All the views that were expressed have been taken into account in the reporter’s report, and I have given them careful consideration.
I also thank NatureScot for its work in carrying out such an important and extensive public consultation process in a very robust and professional way. I am sure that members will appreciate the complexity and scale of that task. That has also been reflected in the independent review of the consultation process by the Scottish Community Development Centre. Its report states:
“NatureScot’s engagement on the national park proposal achieved very impressive levels of public involvement”.
It also states:
“this consultation compares very favourably with others and has demonstrated elements of very good practice in the use of the National Standards in Scotland”.
In its role as the reporter, NatureScot has analysed the findings of the consultation and provided advice and recommendations to the Scottish Government. Those have been set out in a report that has been laid before Parliament today and published on the Scottish Government’s website.
The report sets out that, of those who engaged with the consultation, 54 per cent of responses opposed the national park proposal and 42 per cent of responses supported it. The majority of consultation responses were completed by people living and working in Galloway and Ayrshire, with 94 per cent of responses coming from those in the area or within 30km of the proposed boundary. Taking account of local responses alone, 57 per cent opposed the proposal while 40 per cent were supportive of it. The report notes that support was greatest among environment, recreation and tourism sectors, while landowners, land managers and those working in the farming, forestry and renewable energy sectors had the strongest reservations.
Based on the evidence that was gathered during the investigation and consultation, the reporter has advised that, although it considers that the proposed area meets the conditions for a national park, as set out in the legislation, the proposal does not have sufficient clarity, nor has it garnered sufficient local support to proceed to the next stage of designation.
I want to put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the process. We have listened to the people of Galloway and Ayrshire. We have noted the views expressed by communities, organisations and businesses and we respect those views. We have carefully considered the advice and recommendations of the reporter. We have weighed up the arguments for and against the creation of a new national park in the area, taking full account of the potential economic, social and environmental factors, and we have come to the conclusion not to proceed with the designation of a national park in Galloway and Ayrshire.
I realise that the decision will be very disappointing for those who have been campaigning for a new national park in Galloway for many years. I also recognise the huge amount of work and time that has been invested by a great many people throughout the process. I thank everyone who was involved in that process, including members of the Galloway National Park Association and the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—UNESCO—Biosphere.
The Galloway and Ayrshire proposal has generated a lot of debate about the role and value of national parks in Scotland more generally. Again, I am grateful to all those who put forward their views and perspectives on that during the consultation process, and the Government has listened carefully to all the views that were expressed.
Although we have decided not to proceed with the designation of a new national park in Galloway and Ayrshire in light of the consultation findings and the reporter’s conclusions, I stress that the Government remains committed to national parks in Scotland and their vital leadership role in tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, promoting sustainable land management and supporting the economic and social development of local communities.
There is plenty of evidence to show that our national parks are achieving for people and nature. In Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, the national park authority is working proactively with a wide range of public, private and third sector partners to reduce carbon emissions, restore peatland, protect and restore precious wildlife and habitats, generate investment and jobs in the local area and manage more than four million visitors to the park each year.
That is also true in Cairngorms, where the national park authority is at the forefront of the ambitious Cairngorms 2030 partnership programme, with more than £40 million being invested in the park area over five years to restore and enhance nature, reduce flood risk, support regenerative farming, improve active and sustainable transport, empower local communities and improve people’s health and wellbeing.
We will continue to support our existing national parks, and we remain open to proposals for new national parks in the future. Any proposals must be built on grass-roots community support and consensus.
As we set out in our most recent programme for government, this Government is listening and wants to bring people together, because the most effective solutions emerge when we work in partnership.
We fully recognise and appreciate that the consultation period has been a challenging time for local communities. It has also raised some really important issues that people in Galloway and Ayrshire care deeply about—from improved transport links, affordable housing and health services to business investment, support for rural industries, environmental protections and opportunities for young people. What is important going forward is that we take note of the issues, concerns and opportunities that have been raised during the consultation process and that we place a renewed focus on delivering for the people of south-west Scotland.
There are very strong foundations to build on, given the area’s importance for sustainable and regenerative farming and forestry, renewable energy and other land-based activity. There are also strong regional partnerships and structures in place, including the regional land use partnership and framework, the UNESCO biosphere, the natural capital innovation zone and the responsible tourism strategy, all of which are supported by the region’s economic partnership and South of Scotland Enterprise.
In its role as reporter, NatureScot has made some recommendations on ways in which those existing structures and arrangements could be further strengthened. South of Scotland Enterprise has also suggested that there could be benefits in exploring an alternative approach, drawing on the unique assets and existing structures in the south of Scotland. We are really grateful for these suggestions, and we now need to take time to reflect on them and give them deeper consideration.
In the meantime, the Scottish Government remains firmly committed to working in partnership with local communities and organisations across the south-west of Scotland to reduce carbon emissions, enhance and restore nature, support our rural industries, bring forward investment and deliver growth and jobs that enable the area and its people to flourish.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. I ask members who wish to ask a question and who have not already done so to press their request-to-speak buttons.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the early sight of her statement. I declare an interest as a proud Gallovidian who was born and bred in one of the most historic and beautiful places in the world.
In the previous session of Parliament, I and others initially supported a Galloway national park lite that focused on much-needed sustainable economic development. However, my support and that of others changed when the Bute house agreement saw Green minister Lorna Slater push forward a top-down proposal that felt more like a Green nationalist park than a community-led initiative—a designation imposed rather than a designation requested.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s decision. That outcome rightly reflects the views of the majority of local residents, land managers and businesses. However, although the decision is correct, the process that led us here has been deeply flawed. The Government’s approach was marked by poor communication, shifting expectations and a lack of transparency. Communities across Galloway invested time, energy and hope in what should have been a positive process of bringing communities together to improve a region. What we ultimately got felt like a top-down and predetermined process. We were continually told that a Galloway national park would be different, but we were never told how.
We should have had an independent review of existing parks so that lessons could have been learned to form a firm foundation for the creation of new parks. Cabinet secretary, can you explain what specific evidence or community feedback informed your decision not to designate the national park? How do you intend to rebuild trust with the communities that feel that the process has been mishandled from the outset? Does the cabinet secretary have any plans to amend the current legislation to address some of the identified shortcomings?
Always speak though the chair.
Finlay Carson has raised a few important points that I want to address. First, on the criticism of the process, it has certainly not been top down. He makes accusations that it was predetermined from the start, but that is not the case. If members look at the announcement that we have made today, they can see that the process was always about listening to what the people of Galloway and Ayrshire want to see in their area. That is what NatureScot has given due consideration to through all its rounds of consultation, as much as anything else. It is not fair to criticise the process leading up to that point. Extra steps were added to the process to ensure that there was a bottom-up approach.
I know that Finlay Carson will have met the Galloway National Park Association, which I first met when I was appointed as a minister in 2018 and which has been building a campaign from that point. I appreciate that members might not have had the opportunity to go through the full detail of the reports that were circulated before the statement but, in its report, the Scottish Community Development Centre identified that the proposal was built on significant engagement work that had taken place up until that time.
On how we move forward from here, as I said in my statement, I recognise how heated the debate has become and the divisions in communities over the park proposal. That is why I wanted to set out as early as possible how we are moving forward on receipt of NatureScot’s report. As I outlined in my statement, some of the suggestions and proposals that have come through the detailed consultation and engagement process are really valuable. It is important that we take time to consider them fully and to get this right before we set out how we will move forward. I am more than happy to meet Finlay Carson to discuss that further and to hear whether there are any other potential avenues that he would like us to explore.
For too long, Galloway has been Scotland’s forgotten corner. Today, the Government made it clear that it wants to tear down the welcome to Dumfries and Galloway signs and put up no entry ones instead. Why is it that every idea that this incompetent, useless Government touches falls apart? Why is its only ambition for Galloway to turn the region into a dumping ground for wind farms, with no local jobs?
The cabinet secretary knows that she could have brought forward plans for Galloway that supported farming and forestry and helped them thrive. She could have built something special and made a change for the better. Instead, she has taken the easy way out and walked away. This do-nothing Government has failed to set out an alternative to its inaction. There is no plan B to fix a local economy that is built on low pay, and there is no action to stop the fastest depopulation in mainland Scotland.
We know that national park status brings more than £10 million a year of direct funding from the Government. Is that money still on the table, or is this just one more betrayal by a Government that has given up on Galloway?
Again, there is a lot in there that I absolutely disagree with. I refute those allegations about Galloway and its region, because we recognise how significant Galloway, Ayrshire and the south of Scotland are. That is why we have invested so much in the region across a number of different organisations.
A lot of work is on-going in the area at the moment. There is all the work that South of Scotland Enterprise is undertaking. There is the work of the biosphere. There are all the strategies, the natural capital innovation zone, the regional land use partnership and the framework that is being developed on the back of that. All of that is happening because we want to invest in the area and see it succeed.
I recognise that there are issues, a lot of which were drawn out in the consultation and some of which the member has touched on. That is why the next steps that we take are so critically important, and we have to take time to get that right.
NatureScot’s report has recommendations on building on existing structures. We want to have those conversations to see how we can move forward in a way that will benefit the people and communities of Galloway and south and east Ayrshire.
It is clear that there is no current consensus from the local communities in Galloway and Ayrshire about the way forward. That is exactly why the Scottish Government’s consultation was so important—because it established what the views are.
The cabinet secretary has intimated this already, but I ask her to say more about how the communities can be supported to engage with one another on what is next. Will she also say more about plans for the future with regard to what is in the best interests of Galloway and Ayrshire?
First and foremost in all this are the people who live in Galloway and Ayrshire and their views. That is why the extensive engagement that has been undertaken in relation to the proposal was so important. It was remiss of me earlier not to thank Lorna Slater for all that she did in her role as minister in taking forward the work and ensuring that there was very much a bottom-up approach, in contrast to some of the accusations that have flown round the chamber this afternoon. We want to hear what people in Galloway and Ayrshire have to say about this and how they want to move forward.
The recent consultation flagged a number of issues, as I touched on in my statement. They vary from concerns about the climate and biodiversity to a strong interest in transport and improving roads, and from issues around economic development more broadly to affordable housing and trying to secure opportunities for young people so that they stay in the area and it thrives and flourishes. As I have outlined, we see that information as really important. We have listened to the responses to the consultation and we want to take time to make sure that we get the next steps right.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the important issues that people in Ayrshire care deeply about, from roads, affordable housing and health services to business investment, environmental protection and opportunities for young people. Those concerns have not changed. Can the cabinet secretary tell us more about what the renewed focus will look like and when it will start to deliver for the people of south-west Scotland? The statement also mentions strong regional partnerships and structures, including the UNESCO biosphere. Concerns were raised recently about the long-term funding for that—
Please be brief.
Will the cabinet secretary commit to looking into it?
Sharon Dowey made a couple of points, and I am more than happy to follow up with her in detail across the areas that she mentioned. Earlier, Finlay Carson asked my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Transport a question about transport links, including investment in the A75 and the work that is progressing there. Notwithstanding the issues in the area, work is going on across a number of areas to address that and to provide the investment to follow it.
Sharon Dowey also mentioned the biosphere, which does tremendous work. The reporter’s report is important, because it talks about the structures and how those can be built on and strengthened in future. We want to address that, have discussions with the various organisations and see how we move forward from there.
It is vital that we continue to support nature recovery and improve biodiversity in Scotland, as the cabinet secretary has already said. Can she say more about the Scottish Government’s work to combat nature loss?
It is vital that we tackle the two biggest crises that we face today: climate change and biodiversity loss. Regardless of whether a national park structure is in place, we have to ensure that we take action to address those.
Members across the chamber will be aware of the work that we are doing on biodiversity, including publishing our strategy and biodiversity plan, which includes a range of more than 100 actions that we are taking to address the biodiversity crisis. We are trying to deliver on that through the nature restoration fund, which has, so far, provided more than £65 million to more than 250 projects to address some of the most acute issues across Scotland.
The nature restoration fund is not the only mechanism that we have. In my portfolio, the agri-environment climate scheme also looks to tackle some of those issues, and that work will continue.
Given that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park generates £540 million a year and supports more than 6,000 jobs, and that the expanded Cairngorms national park generates £419 million annually and supports 5,400 jobs, what is the Scottish Government’s plan? What specific actions will it take and what investment will it make to ensure that communities in Galloway and Ayrshire do not miss out?
Sarah Boyack raises important points about the value of our existing national parks. When we look at the jobs that they support and consider that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park generates £540 million a year and how the rangers manage visitors, we see that there is no question about the value of the parks. However, the decision that we reached was based ultimately on the work that has been done by NatureScot as reporter, its consultation with communities on the ground and its recommendations.
As I have outlined in some of my responses, it is not possible for me to set out the path forward or what investment there will be, because the discussion about how we take this forward, by engaging with existing bodies in the way that NatureScot proposed, will be important to ensuring that we get it right.
As the cabinet secretary outlined in her statement, many stakeholders and respondents to the consultation highlighted the local economy as central to their considerations. Can she expand on the Scottish Government’s work to boost and develop the regional economy in the south of Scotland?
As I have outlined this afternoon, we are investing in the region in a range of ways, because we want it to thrive and we want its economy to be successful. We should consider some of the work in the area that has been undertaken by organisations such as South of Scotland Enterprise, which I have mentioned a few times this afternoon. It continues to deliver tangible benefits for businesses and communities right across the south of Scotland.
Last year alone, the agency invested £13.7 million across different projects, including the Chapelcross energy transition zone and the Borders innovation park, which has had the economic benefit of helping to create and safeguard around 1,700 jobs. That is just South of Scotland Enterprise—we continue to invest in a range of bodies and mechanisms, because we want the region to be a success.
The Galloway national park was a once-in-a-generation opportunity for local communities to deliver investment in tourism, the food economy, nature, transport and housing, while getting more local control over forestry and wind farm developments. All that has been lost because of a failure of the Government—and some local politicians, such as Mr Carson—to show leadership and to counter an aggressive misinformation campaign from landed interests. Communities in Perthshire, meanwhile, showed majority public support for a new Tay forest national park, despite facing a similar aggressive misinformation campaign. Will the Government now re-engage with that bid for Scotland’s third national park, or has it simply given up on the idea altogether?
As I outlined in my statement—and I hope that I have been clear on this today—the Government is, of course, open to establishing more national parks in Scotland, but we need to ensure that we get the process right.
I will not set out today that we are not looking to revisit other bids or proposals. We reached the stage of introducing the proposal to designate Galloway as a national park only because it met all the criteria that had been established and consulted on. We are not looking to do that at the moment, but we remain open to doing so in the future.
Sarah Boyack was right to remind us that, when done properly, national parks can provide jobs, be a boost to local economies and help with biodiversity in our fight against climate change. It is clear that that has not happened in this case, and we did not win hearts and minds to bring the project to fruition.
I want to interrogate an aspect of the statement in which the cabinet secretary said that the Government would welcome future proposals for the national parks. Does that mean that all proactive work by the Scottish Government to identify future national parks will now cease?
I am sorry, but I am not entirely sure where the member is trying to get to with his question on whether the Government is actively looking to continue with the process. We established the process a number of years ago, with various stages, a number of which we had consulted on to ensure that we were developing a bottom-up approach and that, if we were to propose a national park, it would be in an area where there was strong community support for it.
We have been through that process and we have exhausted it. We then followed the statutory process and appointed NatureScot as reporter. On receipt of that report, we concluded that we would not take the process any further. I will not revisit, or commit to revisiting, that decision today.
How can the Scottish Government help to support the vital work of the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Partnership—the first UNESCO biosphere in Scotland—to fully realise its potential and aims of creating sustainable tourism across my constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, as well as Dumfries and Galloway, especially now, when the biosphere’s funding and sustainability are in question? The partnership has, to date, received amazing buy-in from community groups, towns, villages and businesses that are working to increase biodiversity efforts in low-carbon days out for residents and visitors to the area.
Elena Whitham raises not only important points about the importance of the work that the biosphere undertakes and how important it is in the region, but valuable points about sustainable tourism and the encouragement thereof, in relation to which a lot of work is going on.
I know that the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Partnership received a new funding package from South of Scotland Enterprise to support its important work in tackling the climate and nature crises and to support sustainable development, including sustainable tourism. We welcome the funding that has been introduced.
As I said in my statement, we will take some time to reflect on the reporter’s recommendations, which talked about building on the existing structures, before we set out next steps.
I welcome the decision, given the clear level of concern among campaigners, stakeholders and local communities. I recognise that the consultation led to real concern and anxiety among those communities, which have long been neglected by the Scottish National Party. Will the Government now undertake to come forward with a real plan for investment in rural areas that can deliver for communities in Dumfries and Galloway and East Ayrshire to support tourism, agriculture and infrastructure in the south of Scotland, which the SNP has failed to do in the past 18 years?
I completely refute everything that Craig Hoy has said, because we have a very strong track record of investing in all the areas that he talked about.
Craig Hoy touched on agriculture and, specifically in relation to my portfolio interests, I will say that it was this Government that decided to protect and maintain direct payments for farmers in Scotland when his Government down south did away with them completely and did nothing to protect the agriculture industry. I happily stand by my Government’s record on investing in rural Scotland.
I declare an interest, as my sons are Gallovidians and I lived and worked there for many years, when I saw the beautiful landscape buried by the Forestry Commission overplanting Sitka spruce.
I find the reporter’s results disappointing—I understand them, but they are disappointing—as Galloway could well do with increased tourism opportunities, which would provide work that would help to redress the imbalance in demographics. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary will know this, but, given its interest in the economy, does South of Scotland Enterprise have any options that might be open to the Government?
Christine Grahame talks about South of Scotland Enterprise, which, as I touched on in my statement, has made a proposal for how we could move forward. We are giving strong consideration to that proposal.
It is important to recognise that we are building on a strong base. I recognise some of the concerns that were raised during the consultation and some of the issues that we have touched on today, but the strength of some of the sectors in all the communities—including farming, forestry, the renewables industry—and of all the important industries and sectors that we have across the south of Scotland, as well as some of the organisations that I have mentioned, shows that we are building on strong foundations. It is that strength that I am keen to build on.
That concludes the ministerial statement on the Galloway and Ayrshire national park proposal. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change positions.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
NHS Grampian