Seòmar agus comataidhean

I take issue with some of the sentiments that have been expressed, because they are somewhat conflicting. Mhairi Dawson, you suggested that you do not know what you are deciding on, but someone also said that it is all set in stone and is a “done deal”. There is a lot of uncertainty, but is that not because the formal consultation does not start until next week? That will set out the considerations for the public, which may be about boundaries, the planning authority status of the new national park or the make-up of its board. Are we jumping the gun by saying that NatureScot has failed, when in fact that process is about to be undertaken?

I know that the NFUS says no to national parks, but when it comes to the Galloway national park, what is the NFUS actually saying no to? What policies that are yet to be decided is it saying no to?

Well, we can dispute that.

I put it on record that I was a supporter of Galloway park lite. I followed in the footsteps of the late, well-respected former Presiding Officer, Sir Alex Fergusson, who saw the opportunities that a national park-lite process could bring to Galloway, which is seeing depopulation, an ageing population, one of the lowest wage economies in the country and houses being unaffordable, even though the house prices are currently the lowest around.

However, my question is whether we are getting the process right. My support of the national park was somewhat dented by the Greens. The whole process has been tainted by the influence that the Green Party has had and the timetable that it brought in. We already know that, by the very nature of Galloway, any national park there would have to be hugely different to elsewhere. We have a bigger population, intensive agriculture, a population that is dispersed across the region, commercial forestry and renewables. Galloway national park would be quite unlike any of the other existing national parks—not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom. It would therefore have to be fundamentally different.

I have already called for an extension to the consultation, and the cabinet secretary has stated that the process needs to be done properly rather than only to a timetable. I am sure that you gentlemen want a national park to deliver all the things that Galloway needs. The current timetable might lead to only 12 weeks of consultation and a designation sometime before 2026. That is, if we do designate a national park, and designation may not be the solution, as other policy interventions could deliver the benefits without it. Therefore, why are you not suggesting that we do the review of current national parks and ensure that the two processes are run concurrently, so that we could potentially change the priorities of a national park to include more biodiversity and climate change, rather than what it should be about—in my view—which is sustainable economic development? Why can we not have a process that delivers something that Galloway really needs, rather than sticking to a timetable that is far too short?

Thank you, convener. I am a proud Gallovidian, from the nicest and most beautiful constituency in Scotland—

It is important to put it on record that the manifesto commitments made by some parties were based on what was there previously, not on what the Bute house agreement ultimately delivered, which was a national park based on biodiversity and climate change as priorities. I can tell you that that was certainly not the manifesto commitment made by the Scottish Conservatives, which was about sustainable economic development. Therefore, we have to be very careful to ensure that we recognise manifesto commitments for what they were and the fact that things changed when the Greens entered into the Bute house agreement.

I am a bit like Mr Whittle. I do not want to repeat a lot of what was said, but let me begin with the late Alex Salmond, who, in November 2011, 13 years ago, spoke at the opening of the new ports at Cairnryan, and talked about the three Rs of Scottish Government support for the region, which were roads, rail and regeneration. The then First Minister even announced the creation of a Scottish Government task force to work with local councils and other partners to explore the potential for the future of Stranraer. Sadly, that all fizzled out, like many other promises.

The First Minister, John Swinney, pledged to improve journey times on the road back in 2016. He has been followed by a succession of transport ministers. Humza Yousaf, Jenny Gilruth, Michael Matheson, Kevin Stewart, Màiri McAllan, Graeme Day and the current transport secretary, Fiona Hyslop, have all pledged action to upgrade this key artery between the UK and Europe. Eight years since petition PE1610, to upgrade the A75, was first lodged, we are still waiting for action.

The route was recognised in Sir Peter Hendy’s union connectivity review as one of the most financially beneficial roads in the UK, carrying billions of pounds-worth of goods every year. Talks are now, thankfully, finally being held between the respective Governments in the UK and Scotland. I hope that today we will find out whether the UK Labour Government is continuing with the commitment to fund studies on the A75 and to follow that up with funding to develop upgrades.

The chronic failure to invest in the A75 is shown tragically in the number of human lives that we have lost, and the safety record of the road is quite appalling. Brian Whittle touched on closures on the A77. To give you some examples, between January and September this year, the A75 was closed on nine occasions due to serious road traffic accidents. In the same date range, the road was closed, with diversions in place, on 11 occasions as a result of roadworks or storm damage. Those diversions resulted in hundreds of miles of detours on roads that are not fit to carry the traffic. Even scheduled closures are now overnight. They have to be overnight closures or full closures of the road because the trunk road is not wide enough to allow upgrades to be made to the surface and traffic to safely pass by, so it is a bit of a double whammy.

It is clear that we need to stop talking about this and get action to upgrade the A75, which has been identified as one of the most important roads in the whole of the UK. That needs to be done as a matter of urgency.

One of my biggest concerns is that we have heard about all the downsides of national parks in Scotland. The Government is committed to delivering at least one new national park in Scotland by the end of 2026, but should it have waited until lessons had been learned from the existing parks? I know that somebody has already touched on this, but should there be a formal independent review of the current national parks to see what lessons could be learned?

In some instances, national park status might deliver benefits to some areas, but we do not know what those might be, because we have not reviewed the work that has already been undertaken on the benefits and drawbacks of national park status.

What are your views on potentially pausing the commitment to new national parks until a thorough review of the existing parks has been done?

That takes us neatly to a question from Emma Harper.

Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2024 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Before we begin, I ask members to ensure, please, that all electronic devices are switched to silent. We have received apologies from Ariane Burgess.

The first item on our agenda is to invite Tim Eagle, our newest committee member, to declare any relevant interests. In welcoming Tim, we also thank Rachael Hamilton for her contribution to the committee’s work since the start of this parliamentary session.

Tim, do you have any interests to declare?

Our next item of business is consideration of an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument—the Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, and officials from the Scottish Government. They are Darren Cormack, who is food and drink, livestock products policy manager; and Judith Brown, who is a solicitor.

I invite the minister to make an opening statement.