Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

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.