���˿���

Thank you for that. From the evidence that we have received, it appears that part of the issue is that there are no discernible benefits relating specifically to a national park. That applies even to some of the aspects that you have mentioned, such as dementia centres—Kirrie Connections, for example, is not in a national park area. There are also bike trails all over Scotland that are not the direct result of a national park. What, in your view, are the benefits that can be gleaned only via a national park?

Would you envisage a Galloway national park as having some of the facets that the other national parks have, such as Aviemore and Loch Lomond Shores?

I have a few. First, given the Scottish Government’s policy of compliance with current European Union legislation, I would like to clarify whether its policy is compliant with the EU floods directive and water framework directive.

I find the response from the Scottish Government incredibly disappointing. It just about strategies and working groups. I do not know Speyside well but, in Angus, 60 homes are being demolished as a result of inadequate flood defences. Planning was consented for homes, which led to flooding last year and, a year on, there has been no action whatsoever. As we heard from the Scottish Government, no one is responsible for providing leadership over riparian basin management, so I would appreciate hearing the Scottish Government’s views on a single body being appointed to be responsible in that regard.

In Scotland, local authorities are taking one view in respect of planning. SEPA is notionally in charge of flood management plans but is not able to implement them if there is disagreement with other interested parties. There is a lack of foresight over flood basin management with landowners and food producers and there are consultations with people who feel that their voices are not heard.

Leadership is necessary. It does not matter whether it is SEPA or another body, but the people of Scotland deserve to know who and which organisation is responsible. If it is the Scottish Government, that is great. If it is SEPA, that is fine, but we need to know who manages our flood risk management approach and, as the petitioner seeks to do, consider whether that approach is correct. However, we do not know who is responsible at the moment. There may be some other points, convener.

NFU Scotland has raised concerns about existing national parks, and we have so far been unable to get any evidence to assuage those concerns. Is there anything that you could provide to NFUS in that respect today?

The Scottish Government has said that any

“new National Parks should be designated in response to local community demand.”

What level of local buy-in do you consider necessary for a designation in order to progress?

There is a genuine difficulty for local communities in Galloway regarding the difference between the principle and the blueprint—you made a point about that. In Angus, if you were to ask the people of Forfar whether they want a train line from Forfar to Dundee, most of them would say yes. However, when we consider the costs of it, the elevation and the alternatives, people might come to a different point of view.

NatureScot has said:

“We do not know what the proposed national park in Galloway would look like”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 13 November 2024; c 7.]

How, then, is it possible for local communities to make a decision on whether they want one?

I think so, but it leads me on to what is quite a concerning aspect of this issue. How can communities make an assessment of whether they want something when that thing is not defined? For some people, it would be beneficial if the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park did not have the Loch Lomond Shores centre, while others might want something of that scale, because of the economic benefits. By the time that you have layered on proposals on climate change and biodiversity, there might be a number of quite compelling but competing visions for what the Galloway national park would do.

Did you consider doing the consultation in two parts, first, by gaining views, and, secondly, by showcasing those views to communities so that they could decide what might be delivered as a result? Does that make sense?

I am a little bit concerned about closing the petition when we have not yet seen the guidance that the Scottish Government has published. We could write to the Minister for Public Finance to seek further information on when that guidance will be published, an update on work to progress proposals for raising the current 50MW threshold to allow planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farms, and more information on what consideration the Scottish Government has given to ensuring that support is available to members of the public who wish to participate in public inquiries.

I fear that we are reaching the end of our involvement with the petition, but there are still some actions that we could undertake.

Thanks for that. With onshore wind projects, for example, we have found that Scotland is broadly supportive of them until they are close by. It might be quite interesting to consider that same element in any further research on national parks.

Obviously, the consultation period is just starting, but I am interested in the vision for Galloway national park, in particular, and in how communities can assess whether they want it for their area. Is the vision very similar to those of the existing national parks, or is it slightly different?

I repeat that the NFUS has said that

“existing national parks have failed to make a positive contribution to farming and crofting.”

What is different about the proposed Galloway national park that will change that, or will farmers and crofters in Galloway make the same assessment?