Chamber and committees

Absolutely. That was identified in the report. A key part of NatureScot’s recommendation was to look at the existing structures and mechanisms in the area and to consider how to build on them. Those include the natural capital innovation zone, the work that South of Scotland Enterprise is doing, the UNESCO biosphere, the regional land use partnership, which you mentioned, and the framework on the back of that.

Yes, it can be a vulnerable process. I recognise the sheer amount of work done by the volunteers in Galloway and by those who put forward the other bids. I do not, by any means, underestimate how much work went into that and how much capacity it would have utilised.

We tried to support those volunteers and engaged other consultants to support the nominating groups, recognising the burden that the process would put on them. We also aimed to ensure that good quality bids were put forward for the appraisal process. I appreciate the difficulties that you raise and the onus that was placed on the volunteers. It is important that we supported the nominating groups, but I think that it had to be a community-led effort.

We had selected Galloway from that list because it met all the criteria that had been set out through the appraisal process. However, I want to be clear that we set out a process to designate a new national park in Scotland, and, as far as I am concerned, we have completed that process and have come to a decision not to proceed with that designation. I do not want you to think that we will now reopen the process or go back to consider other bids, because we have been through the process and it has been completed. I will not be going back to review those bids or to consider proceeding on that basis.

Generally, we are open to considering the establishment of a national park in the future, but it would be for a future Government to determine how to take that forward. I certainly will not be reopening the process in the time that is remaining in this parliamentary session.

It is not a proposal that has been put to me or that I have been asked to consider, so I would not be looking to consider it at this stage. If a proposal came forward, it would have to undergo significant consultation and engagement. I have not been approached about that, so I am not looking to consider it at the moment.

If anybody wants to have that conversation with me, I am more than happy to have it, but I cannot make any commitments at this stage that I will look to do that, because of the processes that would potentially be involved. Again, I have not received a specific proposal in relation to that.

People have perfectly legitimate views and it is up to them to express those; I will not suggest otherwise. However, I think that outlining what a national park can do and deliver was very much part of what NatureScot undertook in the pre-engagement work that I talked about. It also tried to provide information and outline to people in the Galloway area that a national park was something that was entirely up to them to design if it was something that they wanted to have in their area.

Yes, they undoubtedly have been doing more for biodiversity and climate as well as more generally for the communities that live in the parks. I would point to some of the projects in park areas—Cairngorms Connect, for example, has been doing important work in bringing together different partnership organisations. One real benefit of having national parks is that they can do that at a landscape scale. They have the convening power and ability to bring together lots of different organisations and people, which is critical.

We can also look at the promotion of sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Both parks have had pilot projects with farmers and land managers working in those areas, to try to encourage more nature-friendly and climate-friendly farming. All of that has been really positive. The parks have been a real driving force in helping to tackle some of those big challenges.

I think that there could well be, and that is where the cultural development element would come in.

I hope that I was able to explain that in some of my previous responses. I think that the use of the word “development” suggests that it is something that one looks to encourage, much in the same way as we would talk about economic or sustainable development. It is about how we take something that step further.

If there are other suggestions on language, I am more than keen to hear them, but I would like to think that we have the balance right in relation to what the phrase “cultural development” could mean more broadly—as I have said, the promotion of the creative industries could be included in that. It is important that we do not narrow the definition too far down, though, because the aims in themselves are quite broad and fairly generic, so that they can encompass a lot of that activity.

I would like to think so, because I think that it is really important. More broadly, it is a really important part of our heritage and what we produce across Scotland.