Chamber and committees

You raise a really important point. As we have said, we work on the best available data. Of course, wherever we can improve it, we would like to do so. You have just heard about the investment that is taking place in the counter network. Dr Middlemas touched on the fact that part of the methodology that we use will be peer reviewed, but he also pointed out that the methodology and the way that we use the data that we have hold up internationally. We look forward to the outcome of the peer review process, and, where there are recommendations for areas of improvement, we will consider them.

Some of those issues are picked up only through scrutiny of the instruments. The issue here is one fishery, but a number of river systems are covered by the regulations, and it makes sense for us to bring them together in the round. We might be in a position where another fishery contests the data that we have put forward, but, as I have outlined, where such issues arise, we try to address them at an early stage. Indeed, that information and the work that we are doing have already resulted in the gradings of two river systems being changed.

Can we say categorically that everyone will be happy with the assessment of a river system? Of course not, and there is no saying that we will not end up in such a position again. That is why the work that we are doing on the data and the peer review work that is being undertaken on the methodology are important. Given that work, and given what Dr Middlemas has outlined to the committee today, I am confident—as much as I can be—that the methodology stands up to international scrutiny and is in line with how this activity is carried out elsewhere. It is really important to bear that in mind.

As committee members have pointed out, we have to do what we can to protect this iconic species for Scotland. That is exactly what the regulations set out to do, which is why it is vital that they are approved by the Parliament.

I would be happy to—

Apologies, I did not mean to interrupt you.

It would be completely irresponsible of me to commit to funding that I do not yet have. As I have said, the UK Government is expected to outline what funding could look like over a three-year period. Of course, we would very much welcome such a multiyear settlement, but it would be irresponsible of me to commit to a multiyear funding package when I do not yet have assurance of the moneys that I will be receiving from the UK Government.

I am aware of those concerns—again, I have met with various stakeholders in relation to the proposals for a new national park.

There are differences in some areas. For example, agricultural policy inside and outside the national parks is different. To come back to one of my previous responses, I talked about the ability of farms in the park areas to access new programmes and, potentially, other avenues of funding, which is important.

There are some differences in relation to permitted development rights—for example, the size of sheds that people could have within and outwith a park area. I understand that there are some concerns about that. However, in general, the overall policy is not different inside and outside the park. The funding mechanisms are exactly the same in that regard.

Again, I am in discussions with stakeholders and I am trying to listen to and address those concerns as far as possible. I recognise that farming is key to Galloway—I have visited a number of farmers in the area, and that is what the area is about. The dairy industry there is critical, and we would not want that to change.

It all comes back to the fact that people need to be able to have their say in the consultation process and make their views known about what they want to see.

If there are particular issues, I want to dig more into them to find out what is behind them and what the concerns of the people who responded to that poll are. I do not have the details of the poll, know how it was undertaken or know whether any particular views were expressed in it.

What is important is the work that park authorities undertake in developing their priorities and how they move forward. I believe that the Cairngorms National Park Authority is undertaking work across the park area to survey residents and gauge the opinions of people who live in the area as to whether the national park has a positive impact. That will be an important piece of work and I am keen to see the results of it.

That is a difficult question to answer, but I would return to the points that I made earlier. We need people to take part in the consultation, and I hope that as many people as possible participate in it, because we really want to hear people’s views. One of the key things that we asked the reporter to ascertain initially was whether people wanted a national park in their area, first and foremost, before then considering other proposals. It is really important that people take part in that process. We would consider that as part of the overall review. No decisions have been taken, however; we want to hear what people in the area think before deciding on any potential next steps.

I read that evidence. I come back to some of the points that I have made. The national park authorities are in a better place to address some of those issues.

I cannot speak to individual instances of what Mr McKinnon experienced, but let us look at some of the investment. The Cairngorms National Park Authority is able to invest in visitor management and is doing that. Both national park authorities employ seasonal and full-time rangers to manage some of those pressures. The Cairngorms National Park Authority has invested £200,000 to deliver infrastructure improvements. That relates to the infrastructure that you are talking about, including public toilets and motor home waste facilities, as well as wider investments. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority has done exactly the same to manage those pressures.

That is not to say that there are no problems, but the parks are in a good place to address some of those issues and are investing in trying to do that.

No, thank you, convener. I think that we have covered everything.

There are quite a few points in that, which I will try to address. The Government’s decision was not based on consultations alone; there have been several detailed pieces of work. The general consultation found that about 89 per cent of people agreed that there should be a national park.

I appreciate the concerns that there can be around a national park, but that is the fundamental reason why, in respect of the proposal for a park in Galloway, we are asking people whether they want a national park in their area. It is important to get that information directly from people who live in the proposed area to hear what they think about it.

For a number of different reasons, taking forward an independent review is not something that we are considering. National park authorities are accountable to their boards for their performance. Those boards, which are accountable to the Scottish Government, look at the organisations’ finances and how they are operating. All of that is open to parliamentary scrutiny, if it is felt that it is required. If we were to identify any issues through those processes, we would be able to look at them.

At no point during the debate in 2022 that I mentioned was there any suggestion, from any party, that there should be an independent review of national parks. In fact, members from every party across the chamber were extolling the virtues of national parks. If anything, some parties were calling for the timescale for establishing a new one to be shortened; others said that we should designate not just one additional park but two, three or four. As was evident from that debate, there was a very strong feeling that the Scottish Government needed to get on and deliver the new park, because our national parks provide benefits to Scotland.

The work on that is important. I mentioned the various surveys and processes that have been undertaken. It has not been a quick process, by any means, to reach a point at which we could introduce the proposal. We have got to this stage by building on the consultation that was undertaken and, on the back of that, seeking detailed advice from NatureScot. In that context, I do not think that an independent review is necessary.