Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

It is not a proposal that has been put to me or that I have been asked to consider, so I would not be looking to consider it at this stage. If a proposal came forward, it would have to undergo significant consultation and engagement. I have not been approached about that, so I am not looking to consider it at the moment.

If anybody wants to have that conversation with me, I am more than happy to have it, but I cannot make any commitments at this stage that I will look to do that, because of the processes that would potentially be involved. Again, I have not received a specific proposal in relation to that.

People have perfectly legitimate views and it is up to them to express those; I will not suggest otherwise. However, I think that outlining what a national park can do and deliver was very much part of what NatureScot undertook in the pre-engagement work that I talked about. It also tried to provide information and outline to people in the Galloway area that a national park was something that was entirely up to them to design if it was something that they wanted to have in their area.