���˿���

There are two parts to the issue. The first is that the Scottish Government said that the creation of any new national park should be in response to local community demand. I would assume that the Scottish Government and NatureScot would deliver a balanced view of a national park in order to ascertain whether there was local community demand for it. For example, they could set out the economic benefits but say that the proposal would lead to a lot more footfall and litter, as we have heard. Was it presented in that way? What has the process been so far? Have NatureScot and the Scottish Government organised community meetings or social media campaigns?

Thank you. Mhairi Dawson, I have a final question for you. From a land management and farming perspective, are there potential benefits to farming and crofting as a result of the new national park, based on your discussions with NatureScot?

From the evidence that we have heard so far, it strikes me that perhaps the starting point in all this is to have a definition of a national park and what it should achieve. For some people, it might be a pristine landscape without any land management, in which case, biodiversity will undoubtedly reduce. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs clearly has lots of tourism—Loch Lomond Shores has amazing facilities to attract tourists—but then the national park did not want more tourists to go there. Before we get to the stage of presenting to the people of Galloway, we need a starting point as to what we are presenting.

Nick Kempe has touched on this, but, based on the two existing national parks, is there an adequate definition of what a new national park might look like and what the experience would be for both visitors and local residents?

One of our other petitions is about what are colloquially referred to as pylons. We have heard that that consultation basically said, “These are coming, so there’s no option here.” I know that the formal consultation period for the park has not started yet but, from what you have seen so far, has the consultation been framed in a way that says that the national park is coming and that the options are, in essence, about what the boundaries will be?

Mhairi Dawson, we have heard that there is not a clear understanding of what NatureScot and the Scottish Government propose for Galloway and that the consultation process thus far has been inadequate. What is your assessment?

I am quite interested in the public consultation and, if you like, the definition or the proposal. In consultations from local authorities, the Scottish Government or, indeed, non-departmental public bodies, it is often quite difficult to understand exactly what the proposal is and what it means. I know that the formal consultation is about to start, but, from your assessment, is NatureScot able to say, for example, “We know that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs has Loch Lomond shores and Cairngorms has Aviemore; this is the version of that in Galloway, which will mean economic and tourism benefits, but these are the downsides in relation to house prices or congestion,” or, “There will be a commitment from the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 as a result of this”? Can that vision be presented over the next couple of weeks and throughout the consultation process?

With regard to meeting their statutory obligations, national parks could vary quite considerably in what they look like. Is a tourism hub foreseen as part of the proposal, similar to the Aviemores and Loch Lomond Shores, or is that not part of the vision? How can the public and local communities assess whether they want something if they do not know what it looks like?

Yes.

This group of amendments presents the committee—and, indeed, Parliament—with a significant challenge with regard to monitoring and reporting under the bill. Five years ago to the day, the Scottish Government and SNP committee members, excluding Jackie Dunbar, voted for what is set out in amendment 15. As we configure the carbon budgets, how on earth do we ensure that, in five years’ time, the Scottish Government does not look back and say, “Actually, do we want to change the methodology again? What we said five years ago does not apply any more”? If that happens, we will not achieve net zero. The closer we get to 2045, the more significant that challenge becomes.

Essentially, amendment 15 is a challenge to members who were in Parliament in the previous session either to stick to the principles that were applied five years ago or to ditch them. If they ditch those principles, that presents a challenge for Parliament in how we ensure scrutiny of the bill.

Amendments 2 and 10 state that the bill should not permit any carry-forward mechanism. The bill has no explicit provision to permit such a mechanism, and the Scottish Government has previously indicated that it has no intention of seeking to undertake any carry-forwards, but the bill does not explicitly prohibit them, so it could be possible for a future Government to change that practice and, in fact, utilise carry-forwards. My amendments would codify existing Scottish Government practices, and I look forward to the committee’s support on that basis.

I move amendment 2.