Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

There is quite a lot of evidence available on what national parks deliver for their areas, especially when we look at the economies of those areas. I will focus on tourism in each of the national parks, as an example of one aspect of that. In the Cairngorms national park, nearly 5,500 people are employed in the tourism industry. From the latest figures that we have seen, that generates about £420 million for the region’s economy. In the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, I think that the figures show a value to the economy of more than £500 million and that more than 6,000 people are employed in the tourist industry. What national parks can bring to the economy is really important.

However, national parks are not just about tourism; they are also about supporting communities. For example, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park has run some community development projects. It helped to fund and take forward town centre regeneration work in both Callander and Killin and it is also working on various transport projects in its area. So, national parks bring a lot of benefits.

A key programme in the Cairngorms national park that is worth mentioning today is the Cairngorms 2030 programme, which brings together around 70 different organisations. The programme has £40 million of funding attached to it, about £10 million of which has come from the National Lottery Heritage Fund.

Cairngorms 2030 looks to address a number of different issues, such as improving the health and wellbeing of people living in the area. One of the projects that that programme has delivered is an outdoor dementia centre. The programme is also considering what can be done to provide better connectivity, whether that is for walking, wheelchair access or cycling. There are a number of different climate and nature initiatives such as the restoration of peatlands and woodlands and also flood resilience.

I am only touching on some of the projects that show the benefits that national parks provide to local economies.

You mentioned several different issues. Of course, tourism and visitors bring additional pressures, as we saw in particular throughout Covid. The national parks are well equipped to deal with that through their ranger services and also through visitor infrastructure. I know that the Cairngorms national park has been looking at how it can better balance its visitor numbers across the off-peak seasons. It has seen some success in that and has increased the number of visitors in off-peak times by around 18 per cent.

There has also been wider infrastructure investment. Your question touched on housing. National parks cannot fix all the problems in a national park area; it is not their role to do that and they do not have the powers to do that. However, they have a strong part to play when it comes to collaboration and bringing together other bodies to try to address some of the issues that exist in the national park areas.

Each park has to bring forward a partnership plan. For both of the parks, ensuring the delivery of more affordable housing has been identified as a key priority. The amount of affordable housing that has been delivered through those plans in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park area is well above what even the Government asks for. We would expect the level of affordable housing to be about 25 per cent in national park areas, but I think that that figure is about 65 per cent in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park area.

Through their local development plans, national parks are working with local authorities to ensure that they are addressing such issues where there are known problems. As I said, the national parks cannot fix everything, but they have a strong leadership role to play in trying to address some of those issues.

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.