Chamber and committees

There is quite a lot in that question, so I will address it as best I can. I have already outlined why we have reached our position. You are absolutely right—the commitment was made in the Bute house agreement; it then formed part of what we said we would take forward in the programme for government. There was an agreed process, which we are working our way through.

Again, the consultation and the reporting stage are critical to that. We are under no obligation to proceed, and the outcome of that will be important before we determine the next steps. However, in thinking of those next steps and the work that has been undertaken by various groups in different parts of Scotland, it is important that we have reached this stage and that we have continued, given that the process was widely agreed.

Again, I come back to that mandate from the Parliament and all political parties within it. Throughout the course of the debate, no concerns were expressed by any party about how national parks were operating or the benefits that they brought. In fact, it was quite the opposite—the Government was being told to get on, do it now, designate more and do it faster.

It is important that we have taken the time to do what we have done and to carry out the work in the way that we have done it. We are now at this stage in the process, and I will not stop the process in the middle of consultation. We need to see that through before we determine the next steps. In addition, I am not going to stop it in order to undertake an independent evaluation of national parks.

There are the processes that I outlined earlier, as well as the scrutiny and the accountability mechanisms involved, and, indeed, the Parliament could undertake work on the matter if it felt that it was necessary. However, now that we are at this particular stage of the process, I want us to see through the consultation before setting out next steps.

As you mentioned, we have the Cairngorms national park and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, and it is over 20 years since those parks were created. As I outlined in my opening remarks, national parks bring a number of different benefits in relation to the economy and what they can do for communities in an area, as well as for climate and nature. National parks are recognised for those reasons and for the landscapes that are in those areas. I should say that I have a fraction of a national park in my constituency, just towards the very edge, although it does not cover any massive population centres by any means.

I know that there have been calls, for a long time, on the Government to establish a new national park. When I was first appointed as a minister in 2018, I met campaign groups—largely from Galloway and the Borders—that were keen to see a national park developed in their areas. That is why we eventually came to where we are now and why we have reached this stage in the process.

Those campaigns have been on-going for a long time and consultations, surveys and engagement work were also undertaken during that period. A new national park became a programme for government commitment, and in 2022, we debated that in the Scottish Parliament, where there was cross-party support to continue with the proposal and agreement that a new national park should be created. Ultimately, that has led us to the point that we have reached today.

I understand the point that you are making about consultations in general. I know about that from my own portfolio. However, consultations are critical to the decision-making process, and we have a duty to do them. I appreciate your point about consultation fatigue.

In relation to the work that NatureScot is undertaking at the moment, I want to stress something that I mentioned in my opening comments, which is that I am not coming at the consultation from a particular angle and that I genuinely want to hear what people in the south of Scotland think about the proposal. They are the ones who live in the area, so it is important that they want to have the park there.

There are other options in the consultation, too, in which, if a park is not what people want for their area, they can set out what they would like to see instead. The information that will come from the report will be critical. I really want to get the message across that no decision has been made and that we really are listening to what people have to say. I encourage people to take part in the process, which needs to be as open as possible, as can be seen from the number of events that NatureScot is holding as part of the consultation process, and the engagements that it has planned.

On the point about NatureScot being the reporter, it was appointed because it has the expertise in the areas set out in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. NatureScot did the work for the designation of the initial national parks, and it is the most appropriate body to take on this work, as set out in the legislation. It is important to remember that the work that NatureScot is doing, and the reporting process, will be independently evaluated before ministers consider it further.

I hope that as many people as possible will engage in the consultation. It is an open process, and we really want to hear what people think.

We are in the middle of the consultation process at the moment. It is important that we see that through. I am more in favour of that process because we ask people whether they want a national park within their area but we also get wider, qualitative information out of that.

I understand what you say about the boundaries, but boundaries are proposed in the consultation to get people thinking about what a park could look like. However, it is also open to people to suggest what they would like to see in their area otherwise. Therefore, to pose the question in a binary way would not be helpful. It is important to be able to conduct the consultation in the way that NatureScot is doing so that we get the quality of information that it is getting and pick up a wide variety of opinion in considering all those matters.

Yes.

It is important to recognise that the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere is in the area, too, and I have heard from other stakeholders about the roles of other organisations and how that sort of thing can be used. That information is really important, as is hearing what people think about everything else that is happening in their area at the moment.

You are absolutely right to touch on the issue of the budget, as it is an important consideration that we will have to factor into our decision making. As you have said, resources are finite at the moment. We do not have a specific budget allocation for the national park, because we do not know what that proposition might look like; its composition could be entirely different from that of the current national parks. If a proposal were to proceed, it would have to do so in as efficient and streamlined a way as possible, recognising the financial situation that we are in.

Again, I cannot outline today what the trigger mechanism would be. All I can say is that they are all going to be important factors in our overall decision making.

Absolutely. I will touch on the Cairngorms Connect programme, which is part of the work that the Cairngorms national park is doing. Our national parks can be leaders by working at the landscape scale in trying to make an impact. The Connect programme is the UK’s largest habitat restoration project, and it is backed by about £4 million of investment. Sixty members of staff are employed through that work, which concerns how the national park can deliver on planting more woodland and on peatland restoration.

Similar projects are being pursued in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs park through its future nature programme, and the national park directly provides grants to communities for enhancing biodiversity.

The national parks work with farmers in their areas: there are schemes that work directly with farmers to do everything that we would all want to see—ensuring food production, ensuring that farming works for climate and nature and helping farming businesses to become more resilient. The Cairngorms national park is pursuing a future farming pilot to do exactly that.

Different aspects and elements of funding are available to farms within the national parks that are not available elsewhere. Both national parks have a strong leadership role in tackling the climate and nature crises. I believe that they are taking that action at park level to address the climate and nature crises that we know we are in. The work that I have mentioned is just a fraction of what is going on in both areas.

I appreciate that point, and I appreciate the challenges that exist. That is where the initial engagement that NatureScot undertook was really important, as it informed proposals that are now in the consultation, where a few alternatives have been put forward for people.

I completely understand the frustration in that regard. I have met representatives of various groups and bodies and different stakeholders to discuss the proposals that have been put forward. Those proposals can be completely open to interpretation in some ways, and I understand that criticism that people do not know what they are voting for. At the same time, however, it is good to get the sense that, if people in Galloway want something, it is up to them to build it. It is not necessarily a case—in fact, it is not a case—of replicating the existing two national parks, which are different from each other. A national park in Galloway would be a very different proposition, by its very nature. It is ultimately up to people to design what it could look like.

The consultation that we have put forward provides different options for people to respond to, as well as asking for other ideas as to what a proposal could look like. That could include a different boundary or, if people do not want a national park, suggestions for how else we could work to improve the economy in the south of Scotland, in addition to addressing various other issues.

There is definitely now more information in the consultation, and there are different options for people to address and consider when they are responding to it.

I do not know whether it will be helpful, but I can provide you with more information on the work that is being done in relation to that.

I am sorry, Jill. Were you going to come in on that?

As I outlined, the work that is critical is ensuring that we try to get ahead of those challenges where we can. An example of that is the work that the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre has done on trying to predict algal blooms.

It would not be fair to say to the industry that it could not establish a business. We set out in our vision for aquaculture that we want to see sustainable growth of aquaculture in Scotland, but we cannot penalise the industry for issues that are outwith its control.