Chamber and committees

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?

I have a final question. NatureScot’s website says that

“farmers and crofters do not face any additional bureaucracy within National Parks”

and that they can receive additional support. However, NFU Scotland has said that the majority of its members feel that

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

What is your response to those concerns?

Thank you, convener, and I welcome the witnesses to the meeting.

I will start at the beginning. When the existing national parks were assessed, what sort of evidence was sought or research conducted to inform whether a new park should be put in place?

I am slightly confused. Is the consultation about various iterations of the Galloway national park, including its geography and the infrastructure that it might house, or is the consultation about whether the park should or should not go ahead?

Thanks. To finish off, Denise, what would be your top three concerns around a new national park in Galloway?

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?

Thanks for that. I am having an issue with the response to local community demand. There does not need to be an exact blueprint, but there should be a vision or an indication of what that might look like.

John, you take a wider view on national parks. More generally, can you see there being a blueprint for a national park that differs from the two existing ones that we have, or do you think that that is naturally where it would broadly lead to? On the Galloway park specifically, what might that look like and how might it be presented to local communities to allow them to make an assessment of whether they want it?