Chamber and committees

I take issue with some of the sentiments that have been expressed, because they are somewhat conflicting. Mhairi Dawson, you suggested that you do not know what you are deciding on, but someone also said that it is all set in stone and is a “done deal”. There is a lot of uncertainty, but is that not because the formal consultation does not start until next week? That will set out the considerations for the public, which may be about boundaries, the planning authority status of the new national park or the make-up of its board. Are we jumping the gun by saying that NatureScot has failed, when in fact that process is about to be undertaken?

I know that the NFUS says no to national parks, but when it comes to the Galloway national park, what is the NFUS actually saying no to? What policies that are yet to be decided is it saying no to?

Well, we can dispute that.

I put it on record that I was a supporter of Galloway park lite. I followed in the footsteps of the late, well-respected former Presiding Officer, Sir Alex Fergusson, who saw the opportunities that a national park-lite process could bring to Galloway, which is seeing depopulation, an ageing population, one of the lowest wage economies in the country and houses being unaffordable, even though the house prices are currently the lowest around.

However, my question is whether we are getting the process right. My support of the national park was somewhat dented by the Greens. The whole process has been tainted by the influence that the Green Party has had and the timetable that it brought in. We already know that, by the very nature of Galloway, any national park there would have to be hugely different to elsewhere. We have a bigger population, intensive agriculture, a population that is dispersed across the region, commercial forestry and renewables. Galloway national park would be quite unlike any of the other existing national parks—not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom. It would therefore have to be fundamentally different.

I have already called for an extension to the consultation, and the cabinet secretary has stated that the process needs to be done properly rather than only to a timetable. I am sure that you gentlemen want a national park to deliver all the things that Galloway needs. The current timetable might lead to only 12 weeks of consultation and a designation sometime before 2026. That is, if we do designate a national park, and designation may not be the solution, as other policy interventions could deliver the benefits without it. Therefore, why are you not suggesting that we do the review of current national parks and ensure that the two processes are run concurrently, so that we could potentially change the priorities of a national park to include more biodiversity and climate change, rather than what it should be about—in my view—which is sustainable economic development? Why can we not have a process that delivers something that Galloway really needs, rather than sticking to a timetable that is far too short?

One of my biggest concerns is that we have heard about all the downsides of national parks in Scotland. The Government is committed to delivering at least one new national park in Scotland by the end of 2026, but should it have waited until lessons had been learned from the existing parks? I know that somebody has already touched on this, but should there be a formal independent review of the current national parks to see what lessons could be learned?

In some instances, national park status might deliver benefits to some areas, but we do not know what those might be, because we have not reviewed the work that has already been undertaken on the benefits and drawbacks of national park status.

What are your views on potentially pausing the commitment to new national parks until a thorough review of the existing parks has been done?

An important point is that the reason why 30 per cent of respondents across the UK were not happy with the proposal was that free-range eggs might be marketed as such when the hens had actually been housed for a lengthy period. Say that I, as a consumer, go into Aldi or Marks and Spencer—other supermarkets are available—will what are you suggesting happen in practice? You have said that it will be voluntary, but, at the end of the day, part of the reason for the concern about this is that the public might be misled. We might be very aware of avian flu, but I would have thought that the majority of consumers out there would not be aware of housing orders or, indeed, avian flu. They select the product, because they like the idea that hens are not being housed and are free range. How will all this happen in practice on supermarket shelves?

Thank you, minister, for attending this morning. That completes our consideration of the instrument.

Our next item of business is to consider whether to take in private item 5, which is consideration of a draft letter to the Scottish Government regarding our pre-budget scrutiny. Do we agree to take that in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That takes us neatly to a question from Emma Harper.

Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2024 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Before we begin, I ask members to ensure, please, that all electronic devices are switched to silent. We have received apologies from Ariane Burgess.

The first item on our agenda is to invite Tim Eagle, our newest committee member, to declare any relevant interests. In welcoming Tim, we also thank Rachael Hamilton for her contribution to the committee’s work since the start of this parliamentary session.

Tim, do you have any interests to declare?

Our next item of business is consideration of an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument—the Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, and officials from the Scottish Government. They are Darren Cormack, who is food and drink, livestock products policy manager; and Judith Brown, who is a solicitor.

I invite the minister to make an opening statement.