Chamber and committees

You have raised an important point about the work that is currently under way. You are absolutely right, and I think that, ultimately, the proposals for modernising the legislation on national parks came about as a result of a number of pieces of work. I have already mentioned some of the engagement work that had been undertaken and various consultations that had been carried out, and there is also the advice on national parks that NatureScot provided to ministers last year. On that basis of all that, we consulted on proposals that could be brought forward as part of the natural environment bill, which is in the programme for government and which we have committed to introducing to the Parliament this year.

Ultimately, this is about modernisation and recognising the national parks’ role in tackling the climate and nature challenges that we face and looking at their purpose and aims, the role of public bodies in that respect, the use of enforcement powers in the parks and their governance. It is not possible for me to say exactly when that legislation will be laid, but that is the reason for bringing forward the proposals. We published the results of the consultation only just recently—in the past couple of weeks, actually—and we are still considering the responses to determine what will be in any legislation that is brought forward.

We are in a bit of a difficult situation in that respect at the moment, but we also want to provide as much clarity as we can. Obviously, it is hard for me to set that out, and, as I am sure you will appreciate, I cannot say when the legislation will be introduced to Parliament. Moreover, I have to see through the consultation process before any next steps are considered. However, I hope to provide that clarity as soon as we possibly can. I should say, though, that it does not fundamentally alter where we are with regard to the proposition that is being considered for the south of Scotland.

I am probably going over some of the points that I have made previously. You are absolutely right—I have visited Kirrie Connections and I know that it is a fantastic centre, and we did not need a national park for that to happen.

However, where national parks have had a leadership role in being able to work at a landscape scale, that has been really important. For some of the projects that I have touched on today, such as Cairngorms Connect or the Cairngorms 2030 programme, it is about all the extra funding that they have been able to lever in on the back of that.

We can see, in the Cairngorms 2030 programme, the collaboration between 70 different organisations in the area. The ability to bring all those organisations together to work to improve the overall connectivity of the area, as well as general health and wellbeing and—as I said—the peatland and woodland on a wider scale, is really important. It would not have been the case if the parks had not been in existence or had not been able to work on that scale or with that level of investment. That is where I see the additionality that parks can bring.

That comes back to the advice that NatureScot provided to us last year, which I have just referred to. A few recommendations came on the back of that, one of which was the national policy statement that you have asked about. However, it is not an area that we are considering consulting on or bringing forward, because when we considered the advice and the recommendations, our feeling was that it was all set out in the purposes and aims of the national parks. Therefore, bringing such a statement forward is not part of our plans at the moment.

I absolutely appreciate the point. I have, as I have outlined, had various engagements with various stakeholders, and I have also met elected members for the area to hear their concerns.

You are absolutely right. It has been concerning to hear about the division that has been caused, because it is not something that we want to see in our communities. One key thing for me that I hope that I have been able to outline today and, indeed, which I have been trying to get across to people more generally, relates to the concern that this is a done deal and that, because the Government had a commitment to establishing a park, it would, regardless of what might happen, be taking place anyway. That is by no means the case. As I have said, I want to hear what people in the area think before I determine any next steps.

I cannot get carried away with hype—I have to base this on the best available information. I mentioned that debate, because the overall consensus in the room was that this was a proposal that we needed to proceed with. However, I am not just doing this on the back of a parliamentary debate; extensive work and engagement have taken place over the past few years to bring the proposal forward and to reach the stage that we are at today. We cannot forget about all the work that has been done, the extensive advice that has been taken and the various iterations of consultation. If a proposal were to proceed beyond this point, there would have to be more phases of such work; there would have to be another consultation as well as parliamentary consideration of the proposal.

Again, this is not a done deal. We are at this stage in the process just now, because we want to hear what people think. I just want to get across this point: this is still open, and we want to hear people’s views as to whether this is something that they want in their area. If they do not, it will not happen. However, we need to hear those views and what people in the south of Scotland think.

Thank you very much, convener, and thank you to the committee members, too. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

I know that members of the committee are aware that the Scottish Government has introduced a proposal to designate a new national park, the proposed location for which is in the south-west of Scotland.

I believe that national parks play an important role in stimulating economic growth and supporting their local communities, as well as tackling the climate and nature crises that we face. The public opinion surveys that we have carried out show strong support for new national parks and there was cross-party support for them when we had the debate about them in the Parliament.

Earlier this year, following the appraisal of the five nominations that we received against a set of published criteria, we decided to formally take forward the proposal from Galloway to the next stage of the process. NatureScot was appointed as a reporter to investigate that proposal and to lead a statutory public consultation on it. That consultation started on 7 November and will continue for 14 weeks. We extended the consultation period by two weeks to take account of the festive period.

As well as the consultation surveys, NatureScot is organising a wide range of consultation events across the area that will be facilitated by an independent organisation and reported on by facilitators. Additionally, a series of drop-in surgeries and some separate consultation meetings and activities for businesses, young people and equality groups will take place.

As I have made clear, we are keen that everyone with an interest engages in that consultation and makes their views known. I also want to be clear that nothing has been decided—it is very much still a proposal and everyone’s views will be listened to and taken into account before any further decisions are taken.

NatureScot will report on the findings of the consultation and those findings will then inform and shape the advice that it provides to the Scottish Government. Then, we will consider that advice and the consultation outcome carefully before we look to take any further decisions. I realise that there is significant public interest in the proposal and that there is both support for and opposition to it. That is why I am grateful to the committee for its consideration of the petition.

I am happy to take any questions that members might have.

If a national park were to proceed in Galloway, I think that it would be a very different proposition. There are a number of industries that are key to Galloway, such as farming and forestry. Given the importance of those sectors to the area, a park would have to represent that, so, again, it would be a very different proposition.

It is not for me to set out here today what a park should look like and what it has to cover. Ultimately, it is for the people to decide whether they want a national park, and what the shape of that should be and what it should look like.

It is really important that everybody in communities knows that. I have heard that concern directly, and I know that NatureScot has been carrying out engagement work to ensure that everyone in every part of the overall proposed area is aware of the proposals.

There was a specific issue about some initial information not being made available to everyone, but I believe that that has now been resolved. There will be further opportunities in that respect, and leaflets will be sent out to everybody in the area, in appreciation of the fact that not everybody is online and that people need to have that information to hand. We want to make sure that NatureScot is communicating as widely as possible and ensuring that people are aware of the proposals and know how they can take part in the consultation.

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.