Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

We are in the middle of the consultation process at the moment. It is important that we see that through. I am more in favour of that process because we ask people whether they want a national park within their area but we also get wider, qualitative information out of that.

I understand what you say about the boundaries, but boundaries are proposed in the consultation to get people thinking about what a park could look like. However, it is also open to people to suggest what they would like to see in their area otherwise. Therefore, to pose the question in a binary way would not be helpful. It is important to be able to conduct the consultation in the way that NatureScot is doing so that we get the quality of information that it is getting and pick up a wide variety of opinion in considering all those matters.

Yes.

It is important to recognise that the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere is in the area, too, and I have heard from other stakeholders about the roles of other organisations and how that sort of thing can be used. That information is really important, as is hearing what people think about everything else that is happening in their area at the moment.

You are absolutely right to touch on the issue of the budget, as it is an important consideration that we will have to factor into our decision making. As you have said, resources are finite at the moment. We do not have a specific budget allocation for the national park, because we do not know what that proposition might look like; its composition could be entirely different from that of the current national parks. If a proposal were to proceed, it would have to do so in as efficient and streamlined a way as possible, recognising the financial situation that we are in.

Again, I cannot outline today what the trigger mechanism would be. All I can say is that they are all going to be important factors in our overall decision making.

Absolutely. I will touch on the Cairngorms Connect programme, which is part of the work that the Cairngorms national park is doing. Our national parks can be leaders by working at the landscape scale in trying to make an impact. The Connect programme is the UK’s largest habitat restoration project, and it is backed by about £4 million of investment. Sixty members of staff are employed through that work, which concerns how the national park can deliver on planting more woodland and on peatland restoration.

Similar projects are being pursued in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs park through its future nature programme, and the national park directly provides grants to communities for enhancing biodiversity.

The national parks work with farmers in their areas: there are schemes that work directly with farmers to do everything that we would all want to see—ensuring food production, ensuring that farming works for climate and nature and helping farming businesses to become more resilient. The Cairngorms national park is pursuing a future farming pilot to do exactly that.

Different aspects and elements of funding are available to farms within the national parks that are not available elsewhere. Both national parks have a strong leadership role in tackling the climate and nature crises. I believe that they are taking that action at park level to address the climate and nature crises that we know we are in. The work that I have mentioned is just a fraction of what is going on in both areas.

I appreciate that point, and I appreciate the challenges that exist. That is where the initial engagement that NatureScot undertook was really important, as it informed proposals that are now in the consultation, where a few alternatives have been put forward for people.

I completely understand the frustration in that regard. I have met representatives of various groups and bodies and different stakeholders to discuss the proposals that have been put forward. Those proposals can be completely open to interpretation in some ways, and I understand that criticism that people do not know what they are voting for. At the same time, however, it is good to get the sense that, if people in Galloway want something, it is up to them to build it. It is not necessarily a case—in fact, it is not a case—of replicating the existing two national parks, which are different from each other. A national park in Galloway would be a very different proposition, by its very nature. It is ultimately up to people to design what it could look like.

The consultation that we have put forward provides different options for people to respond to, as well as asking for other ideas as to what a proposal could look like. That could include a different boundary or, if people do not want a national park, suggestions for how else we could work to improve the economy in the south of Scotland, in addition to addressing various other issues.

There is definitely now more information in the consultation, and there are different options for people to address and consider when they are responding to it.