Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that I was able to outline in my announcement and my statement to Parliament a couple of weeks ago why we reached the position that we reached.

We have been through an extensive process. The statutory process, in which we appointed NatureScot as the reporter to advise on the proposal, commenced last summer. We received that report, in which the main recommendation was that we should not proceed with the designation but should, instead, look to build on existing structures within the overall area.

The NatureScot report outlined significant opposition to the idea of a national park. The overall figures from the consultation showed that 54 per cent of people were opposed to the national park and that 42 per cent supported it, but, when local responses alone were considered, that first figure rose to 57 per cent of people being opposed to designating Galloway as a national park.

The NatureScot report detailed a number of concerns that were raised throughout the consultation process. I know that there were concerns from specific sectors such as renewables, agriculture and the forestry sector. On the basis of its consultation, NatureScot made the recommendation that was the basis for our decision.

Could I come back to some other points that you raised about the process, convener?

It is challenging, because, as I outlined in my previous comment to Mark Ruskell, a key element of the nominating process that we went through was to ensure that there was local support. There was no point in taking forward a nomination if it did not appear to have strong community backing.

I do not know whether you mean that we must ensure that the community as a whole is represented but that some areas felt that their community had not necessarily been represented in that process. If so, that is why a key part of the reporting process on the back of that appraisal was to gauge the overall interest across the area and to do a deep and wide consultation to get people’s views. That is where the nominating process and the appraisal are important. In the appraisal for Galloway, I think that it was found that there was quite significant and extensive local engagement in and support for the proposal. That is why it was recommended as one of the areas that could proceed to the next stage.

If there are any particular suggestions from members as to improvements that could be made to the nominating or appraisal processes going forward, I am more than happy to consider them, but we did try to build aspects into the process to ensure that there was community engagement and support.

Sorry—are you saying that it is the reporter stage and the engagement stages before it that need to be considered?

I hope that it builds on work that is already happening across our national park areas. Having a stronger duty to facilitate the implementation of the plans puts more of a focus on all public bodies to work to deliver that. That is an important element that we have introduced to the bill.

It is also important to remember that our national park plans are not developed in isolation—our national parks already have to work with local authorities and other public bodies in their development, and there is extensive consultation around that.

Ultimately, it is up to public bodies to deliver a lot of what is set out in the plans. We have touched on housing today, and I think that there are provisions in the bill that will help with that. I do not perceive too much of a conflict between what the national park plans are trying to achieve and the overall duties of our public bodies. A section of the bill makes it clear that the obligation will apply only

“so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of”

that public body’s functions, which I think manages that issue. I hope that what comes through in the evidence that you are hearing from stakeholders is the strong relationships that exist between the national park authorities and other public bodies, particularly local authorities. It was interesting to see the evidence that the committee received from some of the councils, which welcomed some of the duties that we intend to introduce.

What we are proposing to introduce through the bill will build on the strong partnership working that is already in place. The real benefit of the plans is—to come back to some of our discussions this morning—in the overall convening power that the national parks are able to bring and the focus that they are able to put on those critical areas to drive the plans forward. The plans are strong and focused, and they help to drive that delivery. The measures that we are planning to introduce through the bill will help to make them even stronger and ensure extra focus on the delivery of what is set out in the plans.

It is about continued engagement with them throughout the process. I know that I have talked a lot about it today, but the Scottish Community Development Centre’s report sets out some of the issues that it saw with the process and how to avoid similar situations occurring again in the future. One of its suggestions is about bringing together a local steering group early in the process that can advise, help with that engagement and ensure that there is wider feed-in, so that people do not feel alienated by the process but feel that they are part of the conversation and that it is not something that is being done to them. We need to pay attention to a lot of the points that were raised in that piece of work.

I do not think that any of us would want to end up in a similar situation. We have to be able to have these discussions and debates without ending up as polarised as we have seen and experienced. We certainly want to avoid that in the future.

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.