Seòmar agus comataidhean

It appeared right from the outset that the timescales for the designation of the Galloway national park were going to be incredibly difficult to meet. The Galloway National Park Association had carried out the only work that had been done on the proposal and although that was very commendable, it was considered quite some time ago, before I became an MSP. It was clear quite early on that the Government’s consultation process was deeply flawed. Almost £350,000 was spent on that failed process. Should you not have considered halting the consultation earlier, given that it was so clear, even back in December and January at the turn of this year, that the process was ultimately doomed and would be very polarising?

Yes. Ultimately, the decision of the people in Galloway appeared to be based on the idea that national parks are not delivering and that they are actually curtailing the ability for areas to be economically sustainable. Again, the view was that national parks just exacerbate problems with the low-wage economy, low-skilled jobs, higher house prices and restrictions on agriculture. If that is not the case, why did that misinformation effectively succeed in persuading the majority of people in Galloway not to back a national park?

Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2025. Before we begin, I ask everyone to ensure that electronic devices are switched to silent.

Our first item of business is consideration of whether to take item 4 in private. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

We have more or less come to the end of the questions on part 3 of the bill.

Additional amendments to part 3 may be lodged on the Galloway national park and the process for proposing and designating a new national park. At this stage, it is probably more appropriate to bring up those suggestions or concerns around the existing bill in our next evidence session, but it could also inform our discussions on our stage 1 report on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I just wanted to put that on the record.

We come to the end of the evidence session. I propose that we suspend for 10 minutes.

Certainly.

Sorry—to make it easy for me, as well as for you, I will just come back in.

Even if the report suggested that NatureScot acted in an unbiased way or as well as it could, from the outset there was a perception that NatureScot simply could not be unbiased. Ultimately, NatureScot promotes and has a huge role in the two existing national parks. Surely it would be more appropriate to choose a reporter with appropriate skills in conducting such inquiries or processes, through which they could set out their recommendations independently of NatureScot. That approach would have immediately taken away some of the suspicion that the process was, from the outset, going to be biased. The fact that the organisation that carried out the overview considered that NatureScot acted unbiasedly did not matter to the people who, from the start, thought that it was biased.

Would you consider having an independent reporter in the future, to remove that perceived bias?

Okay. Thank you.

The process went horribly wrong. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was a complete and utter disaster that pitched community against community. The whole process was polarised from the outset.

You said that you failed to set out how the park could be different, and that was one of the issues. Communities judged what a Galloway national park would be like by basing that on the two existing parks, but they were told that it could be, or had to be, different—we will move on to that idea in a minute. They were told that the impact on farming, forestry and renewables would be on a completely different scale from that elsewhere. Why did the Government and NatureScot fail to set out how a Galloway park could be different in practice?

There were concerns that farmers would have some of their permitted development rights taken away, that there would be stronger regulation of commercial forestry or that the national park would lead to far more low-paid jobs and higher house prices. You kept on saying, “Don’t worry about that. It’s going to be different. It’s going to be flexible.” Why did the process fail to set out how a Galloway national park could be different? People just did not understand how it could be different in practice, and that is fundamentally why we find ourselves where we are today.

It became clear that the misinformation and distrust were about some of the main issues: that house prices would be higher, that there would be less affordable social housing, and that there would be an impact on agriculture and forestry. There was also misinformation about whether renewables would be allowed to expand or would be more controlled in a national park. The fact that there was such misinformation suggests that there was no trust in the national parks and their performance.

An independent review would have taken away a lot of the doubt, speculation and fears at the outset of the designation process. I am not sure why you do not appreciate that point, because you have been telling us about misinformation all along. There is a lack of trust, and an independent review would certainly put that to bed, because the figures would be there and they would be independently reviewed. Moving forward, if future Governments were to be minded to designate a national park, it would be clear what the real picture is. At the moment, that trust does not exist, regardless of whether national parks are producing annual reports or whether they are being scrutinised by the Government or potentially by the Parliament.

Thank you. Rhoda Grant will ask the next questions.