Chamber and committees

National parks have a lot of experience in working in that area, because the vast majority of the land across our national parks is in private ownership anyway. They have a strong record of collaboration, working with landowners and land managers. The national park plans themselves have to be widely consulted on, and that engagement with all relevant people is really important. Another important point to remember is that the regional land use partnerships are about bringing together the public bodies. Each of our national parks has a regional land use partnership and framework, which is about bringing together all the different representatives to drive forward the priorities for the area. It is not necessarily about having teeth but about fostering collaborative working and trying to ensure that everybody is pushing in the same direction.

To be fair, we all took pains to try to explain that. The Scottish Government did that. NatureScot launched the official consultation in November last year, and there were also three months of engagement prior to that to lay the groundwork and to clearly explain that the national park could fit around the needs of the area if that was something that the people of Galloway wanted to see.

I absolutely recognise the importance of agriculture and the dairy industry in the area. The park would have supported the key industries that exist in Galloway.

The engagement was very much part of the process, which takes me back to Mark Ruskell’s point about how to strike a balance between, on the one hand, going in with a clear idea of what the park could look like and, on the other, just telling people what will come to their area. You do not want to be top-down or to go in with an idea that says what you are going to implement, because people will accuse you of forcing something on them that they do not want.

I am more than happy to hear any views on that, but the approach throughout the whole process, starting when it was established, was to ensure that the park was something that communities and local people wanted to see in their area and that they could design it.

We have a number of recommendations from the Scottish Community Development Centre regarding improvements that could be made to the reporting process, as well as recommendations for the future that will be important for us to seriously consider in any steps that we take from here. I also want to hear members’ views of their experiences.

I appreciate that that could have been an issue and a concern for people. We have just had the session on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. From my perspective, the work that we are doing on agriculture would not have been impacted had the proposal gone ahead and vice versa, because farmers would have still received their payments in the same way, regardless of whether they were in or out of a national park area.

I do not think that the aims of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and what we are proposing would have fundamentally altered the proposal that was being considered for Galloway. So much is happening across the Government at the moment that I appreciate that people on the outside looking in could view it that way but, from my perspective, those things would not have fundamentally altered the proposal.

In some ways, it is all very well to say that with hindsight now. However, I hearken back to the parliamentary debate that took place in 2022, at which every party in the Parliament unanimously supported us in looking to establish another national park. No concerns were raised at that point about an independent review or that the national parks were not delivering on their stated aims and objectives, so that was not considered at the time.

As I responded to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I am not considering undertaking a review at the moment. I believe that our parks are accountable and transparent and that they deliver on their objectives. As I have set out and as I have said previously, there is oversight from ministers. There is also a role for the Parliament in that respect; if there were to be any concerns from the Parliament, the committee could undertake an inquiry into national parks. I do not feel that there is a particular need to review them at the moment, so it is not something that I am actively considering.

I appreciate the points that have been made in the requests for a review, but, as I have outlined, it is not something that I am actively considering at the moment. We have just been through the designation process and I believe that our national parks are accountable and transparent in relation to what they deliver. If the Parliament wanted to do a deeper investigation into national parks, that is, of course, within the committee’s means.

As I reflected in my previous responses, it better reflects the critical work that our national parks do in delivering for biodiversity as well as tackling the climate crisis that we face. As with anything, there will undoubtedly be people who think that we could have gone further.

Ultimately, we are trying to get a balance between what we put forward as the aims of the national parks and the other vital work that national parks do, recognising that the parks are a place where people live and work. I feel that, with the modernisation of that language and the addition of the subsection that I mentioned, we might have that balance right. I am keen to hear the views of the committee, however, and I am interested in seeing what it recommends in relation to stage 1. The proposed new subsection is also important because it picks out specifically how some actions will help to deliver those aims. It puts beyond doubt that those actions will contribute to the four aims as they are set out.

All that I am saying right now is that that could well be the case but it is something that we need to consult on and look at. If we are doing that with local place plans, national park plans are potentially a part of that, but more detail would follow in the guidance and the regulations that we would introduce on the back of that bill.

Yes, absolutely. You would hope that that could also act as a deterrent. If people knew that they could be given a fixed-penalty notice, that could deter behaviour that we would not want to see in our national parks. The role of rangers in educating and having those conversations with people will still be critical, but the fixed-penalty notices are an additional tool that they can use.

I certainly do not think so. The rangers have an important role in the national parks. The fixed-penalty notice regime would just give them that extra tool. Enforcement can be cumbersome for the national parks now because of the route that they have to take of referring things to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I do not see the addition of fixed-penalty notices as changing the role of rangers. I think that it gives them an additional tool for tackling some of the issues that they can experience on the ground.

No doubt you will have heard evidence from the national parks about the training that their rangers go through. That is critical. Enforcement is always a last resort—you do not want it to be the starting point. However, it is important that they have that ability rather than having the system that operates at the moment, which I do not think gives them the ability to tackle some of the issues that they are seeing as effectively as they could.

I feel that they do. I am more than happy to get views on the matter if members feel that the balance is not quite there, but I think that the aims broadly capture some of those issues. You are absolutely right that the issue of housing, which has been identified in the park plans, is huge. We want to ensure that we have sustainable and thriving communities in our national parks as well—that is absolutely critical. However, I feel that the issue is captured in the aims that we have and that, overall, we have that balance. We cannot forget that the overarching purpose of our national parks is to ensure that the four aims that are set out in the bill are collectively achieved, which I think gives them equal importance.