Seòmar agus comataidhean

My questions were designed to provoke such a response. I have looked at the documents that you sent to the committee, and they are rather complicated. We are all guilty of clicking through things, never mind articles of association, and not reading everything—we are not very good at that. To sign on behalf of a young person who is at such a young age or to get them to sign the documents themselves without fully understanding what that could mean for them is a huge issue with regard to safeguarding and protecting their wellbeing.

In asking my final question, I want to understand what the new player journey is supposed to look like, versus the player pathway that was in place before it. The player journey has been badged as something that will ensure that young people enjoy the game, because they will be able to participate without the extra pressure. It is supposed to take into account some of the things that we have been talking about. Do you think that that will be the case? Is that what the new player journey has demonstrated so far?

The way that you have set that out is very helpful.

Good morning. I want to spend some time focusing on the youngest players. I am going right back to that early age and thinking about my own son when he was a wee mini-kicker. He decided that he did not really like football, but some of his friends liked it and went on to play for local youth teams in Ayrshire, where I live. I am thinking about those kids and about the fact that some of them were being recruited to development centres as a precursor to the academies when they were as young as five. I can understand how seductive and exciting it would be for a family to have a scout come down to see a young player and decide that that person might be good for the club and that they want to sign them up to a development centre.

What do the panel members think about children as young as five becoming involved? If that is when they set out, they might end up in a system in which the club that takes them on when they are five or six signs them up to the CAS programme when they are 10 or so and have never experienced the ability to play anywhere else. They might not play for their school or local team during that time, but they are very young. I am interested in what you think about that, starting with Nick Hobbs, who can speak from the perspective of the children’s commissioner.

Are you confident that those development centres have enough protections and support in place for youngsters? Is their wellbeing protected and looked after enough?

Some of my questions have been touched on by the convener.

I will say from the get-go that I first heard about the Galloway national park back in 2016, nine years ago. I was a local councillor in East Ayrshire in 2018, when that council took what I viewed as a positive decision to support the national park after doing extensive public consultation on the back of what the Galloway National Park Association was doing.

The idea of the park did end up feeling like a bolt out of the blue for some sectors, including farming, forestry and renewables. We seemed to get to a point where those sectors became galvanised after suddenly realising that the park might have an impact on them and feeling that their voices had not been heard in the mix. I do not think that anyone can apportion the blame for that to the people from the Galloway National Park Association, because they set out their vision and took it out to people and they consulted quite extensively from 2016 onwards.

Having listened to the other members around the table and yourself, I am wondering how we can ensure that sectoral issues and any further proposals that affect real people on the ground who are farming or who are part of forestry or renewables do not get to the stage where it feels as though people are getting entrenched. There was a groundswell of support, but all of a sudden it got to a crunch point where it felt as if there was not, and some sectors felt that they were not being heard. How do we deal with that? How do we overcome challenges from those sectors to get to a positive conclusion?

Should a requirement be put into the 2000 act for park authorities to consult a wider suite of public bodies on their plans? Right now, it feels like consultation is restricted to local authorities. Although I think that they all feed in in some way, should the duty be explicitly widened to include further public bodies?

Some of my questions have been touched on by the convener.

I will say from the get-go that I first heard about the Galloway national park back in 2016, nine years ago. I was a local councillor in East Ayrshire in 2018, when that council took what I viewed as a positive decision to support the national park after doing extensive public consultation on the back of what the Galloway National Park Association was doing.

The idea of the park did end up feeling like a bolt out of the blue for some sectors, including farming, forestry and renewables. We seemed to get to a point where those sectors became galvanised after suddenly realising that the park might have an impact on them and feeling that their voices had not been heard in the mix. I do not think that anyone can apportion the blame for that to the people from the Galloway National Park Association, because they set out their vision and took it out to people and they consulted quite extensively from 2016 onwards.

Having listened to the other members around the table and yourself, I am wondering how we can ensure that sectoral issues and any further proposals that affect real people on the ground who are farming or who are part of forestry or renewables do not get to the stage where it feels as though people are getting entrenched. There was a groundswell of support, but all of a sudden it got to a crunch point where it felt as if there was not, and some sectors felt that they were not being heard. How do we deal with that? How do we overcome challenges from those sectors to get to a positive conclusion?

I want to explore the proposal in the bill to have a strengthened duty on public bodies to facilitate the implementation of the park plans. We have heard from both national park authorities that they believe that that is a positive move. The Cairngorms National Park Authority said that

“‘Have regard to’ is a fairly passive term”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 2 April 2025; c 23.]

and that having a duty to help to implement the plans would be a positive move. However, we heard concern from some stakeholders that that duty could run into conflict with a public body’s own statutory duties and functions. What would the Scottish Government like to see fulfilled in practice with that measure, and what changes do you think that that will lead to?

Do you think that other things had been happening at the same time that ended up making this feel very messy? The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill has been going through, as have been the changes that we spoke about in the previous question session and the changes that are happening with agricultural payments. The convener also mentioned that permitted development rights might be coming into question. Do you think that a lot was going on and it felt as if the national park would be something else on top, so the vision could not be seen?

Let me explore a little bit further how, as an organisation, you are able to track, monitor and evaluate quality improvement. We have heard about some of the tools that you already use, such as self-evaluation forms and using complaints themselves as tools. What other tools do you have to track, monitor and evaluate improvement?