 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 3832 in the name of Finlay Carson. On the establishment of new national parks, this debate will be concluded without any questions being put with those members who wish to speak in the debate. Press the request to speak buttons now and I call on Finlay Carson to open the debate. Seven minutes there are about, Mr Carson. Thank you very much to the Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by thanking the members who supported my motion, allowing this debate to take place. Many of my colleagues will know that this is an issue that I campaigned enthusiastically on for many years, firstly as a councillor in Dumfries and Galloway now as MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries. I believe passionately that Galloway should have the recognition that it deserves with its very own national park. John of the Mountains petitioned the US Congress for the national park bill, which was passed in 1890, establishing the Yosemite national park. John of the Mountains, as we better know as John Muir, profoundly shaped how people now understand and envision their relationship with the natural world. With the Scotsman as the original promoter of national parks and our world-renowned natural beauty, it is incredible that we only have two national parks in the whole of Scotland and I believe that this is something that we need to change. To set the scene, we currently have two national parks in the Cairn Gorms and the Loch Lomond in Trusocks and there are 10 in England. National parks are protected areas designated because of their beautiful countryside, wildlife and cultural heritage. People live and work in the national parks and the farms, villages and towns are protected along with the landscape and wildlife. National parks welcome many visitors and provide opportunities for everyone to experience, enjoy and learn about apart special natural qualities. Specifically, Scottish national parks have four aims that are laid out in the current national park Scotland act. To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area, to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area, to promote and understand the enjoyment of the special qualities of the area by the public and, crucially, to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities, because too often national parks are seen as planning controls max. However, the current legislation enables the Scottish Government to propose areas for designation and allows considerable flexibility in the design of national parks so that it can be tailored to local circumstances and needs, local needs. In Galloway, we have one of the most man-made or man-shaped landscapes in Scotland, and it is constantly changing. Perhaps, unlike the Cairngorms, we do not want to mouthball our area. It is not about restrictions. The act requires national parks to pursue the sustainable economic and social development alongside conservation and recreation. Importantly, national parks in Scotland are governed by boards made up of directly elected local people, local councillors and national experts. Having local people engaged in working towards the sustainable development and management of the area can bring limitless benefits to the area and local communities within it. I do not believe that anybody can make better decisions about how to manage an area than those people living and working there. The Scottish campaign for national parks and the association for the protection of rural Scotland have highlighted seven areas of the country that could be designated national parks from Harris right down to Galloway. A Galloway national park would inevitably be very different to the two that we currently have. We are not looking to replicate what they have in the Cairngorms or Loch Lomond. We already have so many components of what it is expected of a national park. We have the UK's largest forest park, three national scenic areas, the Galloway and southern Ayrshire biosphere, Europe's first dark, dark sky park, and we could also incorporate an additional marine component in the Solway Firth. There is a rich variety of dynamic coastal scenery and together with the forest park visitors can see a gradual transition from the coastline through a well-wooded farming landscape to the upland hills. There is huge diversity of landscape, making Galloway an outstanding example of the type of fine landscape that Scotland has to offer beyond its classic and best-known highland scenery. Galloway will tick all the boxes. We just need that world-renowned and recognised designation. Kate Forbes As an MSP who represents the Cairngorms, which is a fantastic national park, one of the real challenges is that you talked about the four different aims. Often, it is very difficult to meet those four different aims and they can sometimes come into conflict. Has the member considered how that works in other national parks? Finlay Carson Absolutely. It is a good point that the member has raised. It is vitally important that there is flexibility in the bill as it is at the moment. Often, we describe the national park that we would like to see in Galloway as being national park light to ensure that it addresses a lot of those potential issues. Dumfries and Galloway Council has agreed to be actively involved in any proposals being developed for a Galloway national park and has endorsed the approach taken to date by the community-based group leading the proposals. It is clear that there needs to be a wide-ranging and inclusive engagement process that seeks to build a consensus among communities. It is crucial that the park is demanded by the community and is not seen as being imposed on the community. Council officers have actively promoted the need to consider the solid cost as part of the emergent proposal, recognising environmental, social and economic attributes that the coastal area could bring to a national park proposition. A study commissioned by Dumfries and Galloway Council into the feasibility of a national park noted that there would be significant economic opportunity waiting to be developed in the area. The study went on to suggest that the costs of running the national park could be more than offset by the economic benefits. The Scottish Government previously told me that the designation of new national parks is not a priority. As a Conservative, I understand the importance of prudent public spending. However, the arguments for more national parks in Scotland are compelling. National parks help to boost employment in rural communities through sustainable development, permanent staff employed directly by the national park authority and jobs created through increased tourism and visitor numbers to the area. Scotland has world-class scenery and people come from all over the world to experience it. Our economy relies heavily on tourism, much of which is focused around our incredible beauty in our countryside. In 2015, well over 200,000 people in Scotland were employed in the tourism sector, which is 9 per cent of our total employment. Spending by tourists in Scotland generates around £12 billion worth of economic activity in the wider Scottish supply chain. A report by Visit Scotland found that 17 per cent of all visitors to Scotland went to Loch Lomond in the Trusachs and 12 per cent to the Cairn Gorms demonstrated in the huge pool that national park status can have. It is not just tourism that benefits. Small lifestyle businesses based on sustainable use of natural resources such as timber, fish, wildlife or geology can thrive in a national park environment. In conclusion, the south of Scotland would hugely benefit from the proper recognition that Galloway deserves. That is national park status. The Scottish Government says that it takes climate change and enhancing biodiversity seriously. If that is the case, it must also look at designating more national parks in Scotland. More national parks would inspire pride and passion from local people and visitors alike, boosting the image of Scotland worldwide. Let's give Scotland's outstanding natural beauty the recognition that it deserves, with the powers that we have in this Parliament to designate more national parks. The open debate speeches are four minutes, please. Emma Harper, to be followed by Maurice Corry. I am pleased to speak this afternoon in this debate. I congratulate Mr Finlay Carson for securing the debate. Mr Carson's motion is asking for a review of national parks across Scotland. I represent the south of Scotland region, so I will focus on my area in my contribution. Finlay Carson and I are both privileged to represent areas of Scotland that demonstrate outstanding natural beauty. The landscape and surroundings in the south of Scotland and the south-west of Scotland are an integral part of the landscape, not just for our natural heritage, but also for the economy, as Finlay Carson speaks about. In the south-west of Scotland, it is one of the most beautiful places on this planet, and we are fortunate to have the Galloway and southern Ayrshire biosphere, and within it the Dartsgys Park and the Galloway Forest Park. Last month, I was pleased to host the team behind the Galloway and southern Ayrshire biosphere here in the Scottish Parliament, highlighting their work to MSPs. It was the first event in Parliament that supported the biosphere programme. Biosphere reserves are places with world-class environments that are designated to promote and demonstrate a balanced relationship between people and nature. They are places that value and protect the biological and cultural diversity of a region, while promoting environmentally sustainable economic development. The 5,268 square kilometres of the Galloway and southern Ayrshire biosphere holds a UNESCO designation, and I was particularly struck by the words of Dr Beth Taylor, who is chair of the UK National Commission for UNESCO. When she spoke at my event in Parliament, Dr Taylor described UNESCO's global networks as a powerful mechanism for collaborating with colleagues across borders and helping friends around the world. It is that sentiment that neatly sums up why I first was attracted to the idea of the biosphere. For me, it is outward-looking and international and promotes ecological diversity and sustainable development. The area around Merrick and Glen Trule was previously identified as an eminently suitable in the Ramsey report in 1945, but a proposal for a Galloway national park will need to work for the whole region. Feedback from local people that I have spoken to so far has been mixed. If a new park is to proceed in Galloway, it is vital to garner support from a wide range of stakeholders as possible, and Finlay Carson has already noted that. There are advantages and disadvantages to more national parks, but there is certainly potential in the idea. I was pleased to attend Finlay Carson's parliamentary event in January to hear the case being made by the Scottish campaign for national parks. The event was well attended and supporters spoke eloquently and passionately about why they believe that it will be good for Scotland. Again, in meetings and surgeries over the last year, I have heard a variety of different people voice different, sometimes opposing, matters to a national park for the south west or even Galloway. I do think that it is important that any proposals come directly from the people of the south of Scotland, and it is something that people who live and work there are happy to support and live with for the long term. National parks are not a silver bullet and do carry considerable costs. Meanwhile, I believe that it is important not to lose sight of the many positive examples already in place in the south west and the benefits that are already delivered. I have read with interest a document produced by the Scottish campaign for national parks detailing various different governance models, and I am attracted to the idea of a governance model consisting of a park committee overseen by the local authority. That would solve one of the problems described about avoiding the relatively complex and costly arrangements in place at Scotland's two existing national parks. In conclusion, I thank Finlay Carson for bringing this issue to the chamber. It is important to have this debate and seriously consider whether the creation of a national park would make it easier or more difficult to enable the wild wider rural economy. I thank Finlay Carson once again. If we create a national park, the best way to go about it is to encourage all stakeholders to be involved. I congratulate my colleague Finlay Carson for securing this evening's debate. Being from the west of Scotland and living very near the Loch Lomond and Trossach national park, I understand the benefits that having a national park can bring to rural communities. We are lucky enough to have the Loch Lomond and Trossach national park protecting the natural beauty of our area, encouraging thousands of tourists every year to our part of Scotland and bringing with them massive economic benefit to local businesses and those who are living in our communities. That is why the Scottish Conservatives supported the creation of further national parks across Scotland in our 2016 election manifesto so that those benefits can be rolled out across Scotland. Our countryside's natural beauty is undoubtedly one of our greatest assets. In the whole of the UK and in Scotland in particular our countryside is world renowned and it is one of the major reasons why people decide to visit. Research has shown that over 60 per cent of visitors are interested in visiting our countryside and that it was high up on the list of potential activities for them. Further research by Visit Scotland showed that 58 per cent stated that that was the motivator for visiting Scotland and was for the scenery and landscape particularly. Second on that list, with 31 per cent, was to learn more from Scottish history and culture, both of which national parks protect and enhance. It proves that a large number of our international tourists want to take advantage of our countryside when they are here. Visitor figures to national parks do show that they attract large numbers of overseas visitors and therefore we should be seeking to take advantage of this by spreading the benefits to more areas across Scotland and opening more national parks would help to do this particularly. Kate Forbes and Loch Lomond in the Trosshawks. Enthusism is no bad thing, Ms Forbes. When the challenges and I am in favour generally of national parks but one of the real challenges is that house prices start to rise and I wonder if this has been the case in Loch Lomond in the Trosshawks making it harder for local people to buy and stay in the area and it's far harder to build more houses in national parks. Has that been a similar issue in Loch Lomond in the Trosshawks? Yes, it is. There is a problem. There is an old mechanism or an mechanism in the Loch Lomond national park where there is a question that you need to be working with a national park to build in the national park and that's something that's being addressed by my previous council, which I must declare an interest in that prior to 4 May. That's an issue that I had in my ward in Lomond North and it is a constant battle that we've got going on. That's being addressed but you're right and it has therefore put up this smaller number of houses in value as well. We have another issue while they're getting up in value and that's because the expansion of Faslain and that's another issue altogether. It is worth noting that many countries have a larger number of national parks than we do and that they often play a significant role in the advertising of their country. For example, in Kenya where the country actively advertised the fact that they have more than 45 national parks and reserves. This is also the same in South Africa, which I visited. The label national park is probably the best-known countryside protection designation in the world and although national parks are run slightly differently in each country, people recognise that term as somewhere of outstanding natural beauty and interest and somewhere they should go and see. So while it is important and right that we have more national parks, we need to make sure that we use them effectively and also market them abroad and that the fact that we're actually marketing rural Scotland and its many attractions. If we can improve our national park system and the advertising and marketing of it, the benefits that it would bring to rural communities would be numerous and varied. Tourists in rural areas bring substantial assistance in helping to sustain local services which may otherwise not be commercially viable and the increased levels of expenditure in local shops on rural public transport and increased spending in restaurants and cafes can help to sustain those services for local people while also creating jobs for people in rural areas. I know that there are many communities in Scotland that would benefit from that. In conclusion, I finally believed that rural Scotland would benefit from making national parks a central theme of how we can encourage visitors to come and visit Scotland and therefore we need to increase in the number of national parks that we have in Scotland presently. Thank you very much, Mr Corey. I call Colin Smyth. Do we fall by Graham Day? Mr Smyth, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like other members, I'm grateful to Finlay Carson for the opportunity that this motion gives us to celebrate the success story that Scotland's existed national parks, but crucially to also make what is a powerful case for the establishment of new national parks in Scotland. It's now 17 years since this Parliament agreed the National Parks Scotland Act 2000. This paved the way for the then Labour-led Scottish Executive to create the Loch Lomond national park in 2002 and the Cairngorn national park in 2003. Those parts have helped to deliver a major economic boost to those areas, supporting local businesses, generating jobs for young people, providing affordable homes, investing in sustainable rural development and growing the tourism sector. They have also delivered an environmental boost, restoring paths on peatlands, conserving native woodlands and assisting species recovery. However, it is to coin a phrase, unfinished business. Despite our outstanding natural beauty and the acknowledgement that national parks status is an internationally recognised successful brand, Scotland has just two of the UK's 15 national parks, with 10 in England and three in Wales. We're not just a poor relation to the rest of the UK when it comes to national parks but also to topographically similar countries such as New Zealand, which has 14, and Norway, which has 37 national parks. This Parliament or indeed the Scottish Government has never said that there are only two areas in Scotland worthy of national park status, so the time is right to seriously debate the case and merits of building on our success and developing new national parks. That case is compelling. Our world-class scenery, the protection and management that national park status gives to that scenery and the positive impact on tourism and rural development of the national park brand. The Scottish campaign for national parks report, Unfinished Business, sets out that compelling case in detail. A report, of course, targeted at the time to provide a framework to support the 2011 SNP manifesto commitment that pledged to, and I quote, work with communities to explore the creation of new national parks. Although that commitment was missing from the 2016 manifesto, there is support from the other four main parties, including my own party, which made a commitment to consider options for a new national park. That means, importantly, that there is a parliamentary majority in favour of at least considering new national parks. The SNP document, Unfinished Business, not only makes the case for new national parks but goes on to propose seven possible areas that could be designated and which can benefit from such status. That includes two areas in my South Scotland region, namely the Cheviots and the Scottish Borders. With it, the very active campaign for a Borders national park will shortly publish a feasibility study for its proposed park and also in Galloway, where the Galloway National Park Association has been set up and is developing a strong case for a national park covering parts of Galloway and South Ayrshire. Until I stepped down as a councillor last month, I had the privilege of chairing Dumfries and Galloway Council's economy committee. During that time, we commissioned the Southern Auckland partnership to consider whether such a proposal would be beneficial for a region. The work was undertaken in partnership with the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire biosphere, which has been highlighted as being part of the geographical area that is covered by such a proposal. The final report, which Finlay Carson referred to, entitled A Galloway National Park, addressed areas of concern around the administrative and legislative framework of any national park, making it clear that there is no one-size-fits-all model for a national park and that it can be developed to suit the needs of the local community. It also outlined the considerable benefits and economic opportunities that are associated with the establishment of a Galloway national park. There are many. It would recognise the world-class scenery of the south-west of Scotland, protect and manage that scenery, act as a real stimulus for tourism and rural development and reinforce Scotland's national identity. It is not surprising that the report was supported by the biosphere partnership board and endorsed unanimously by all parties of all councillors in Dumfries and Galloway Council in November 2016, when we agreed to support the campaign for a Galloway national park. I am also pleased to see that commitment continuing in the partnership agreement signed this week by the new Labour and SNP administration on Dumfries and Galloway Council. Galloway National Park Association believes that a new park could attract between 250,000 and 500,000 new visits each year and 30 to 60 million per annum of additional spending in the short term for the local economy, as well as helping to create or support between 700 and 1,400 additional jobs. It argued that a Galloway national park authority could provide direct employment for between 40 and 80 rangers. In short, a Galloway national park would be a social and economic gain changer for the region, a region that the Government knows has massive economic challenges. I hope that the Scottish Government will recognise that not only is there a parliamentary majority in support of considering new national parks, but a compelling case and growing public support for that case. Thank you, Mr Smith. I call Graeme Dey to be followed by Edwin Mountain. Presiding Officer, let me begin as is customary by congratulating Finlay Carson on bringing this debate to the chamber. He, like I am a Harper, and Claudia Beamish serve in the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, which is oversight of national parks. Additionally, from a personal standpoint, a small part of my constituency falls within the boundaries of the Cairngorms national park. I look forward to the publication of the final version of its partnership plan for 2017-22 shortly. The establishment of the Cairngorms national park, as from my perspective, has been a good thing, but the Scottish land and the states have acknowledged that being able to see the benefits of national park status does not necessarily translate into an automatic support for the creation of more national parks, as that is a more complicated issue. There will always be conflicts arise over how national parks operate. In Loch Lomond, we have had the controversy around the approach to tackling wild camping issues. In the Cairngorms, we have seen the park authority oppose wind farm applications from sites out with its boundaries. Access to housing for local people, as we have heard, has been another problem. By and large, they are, from an environment perspective, a vehicle for goods. I get the desire on the part of some for more parks. Personally, I have some sympathy with the call for a marine national park, but I wonder to paraphrase the UK Prime Minister recently on another matter, whether now is the time. Whilst suspecting entirely Finlay Carson speaking up for his area, let me, from a Scotland-wide perspective, play devil's advocate a role that committee colleagues know that I quite enjoy. I hope that my remarks will be accepted in that vein. The motion references calls for a review of national parks in consideration of establishing new ones. What form would such a review take? What resource would it tie up? At a time when the relevant area of the Scottish Government has, for example, action on deer management, biodiversity, wildlife crime, the issues to consider and implement, and a report from SNH on the future vision of Scotland's uplands to digest and then perhaps act upon, is it realistic to increase that workload? A workload is set to be added to greatly already by the consequences of Brexit. Let's recognise that deer management, wildlife crime, land use in the uplands and biodiversity are, to varying degrees, issues of direct relevance to the existing parks themselves, who personally would be caught up in any such review. My understanding also is that the creation of new national parks would then take anything between two to four years, depending on the level of support, functions and government structures and the number of parks involved. The level of support, as we have heard acknowledged, is critical. We would need to be clear that there was if not a clamour for the uncertainty and majority support for such a structure to be introduced amongst the local authorities and the affected communities. How many new parks are singing or light versions? Seven possibilities have been advanced. Then there is a cost involved. The financial memorandum, which accompanied the 2000 act, estimated the running cost annually for the two parks that we now have to be at £6 million each when adjusted for inflation. That is without taking account of that. Claudia Beamish Is it not the case that the points that have been raised by other members, and I would reinforce that, that a light touch national park would be of value, and that the benefits that happen— Ms Beamish, where is your microphone? Well, there you go. Do you think that I can remember at this time of night presiding over what I have said? A new inexperienced image, off you go. The issue of light touch is really important, which has been highlighted by other members. Also, I will just leave it at that for the moment, or you will not have any of your time. Graham Dey I get exactly where Claudia Beamish was coming from, but I would point out to her whether it is light touch or whatever, you still have to take the communities with you. You still have associated costs. As I said, my comments are directed from the point of playing the devil's advocate rather than shooting down the idea. If we have to fund those, where does the money come from in a time of constrained and, indeed, shrinking budgets? Once again, without considering the impact of Brexit, would the expectation be that we would cut the funding for the existing parks? Can you imagine the reaction from those? Presiding Officer, as I have indicated already, I make those comments absolutely in the role of devil's advocates. I think that we need to explore some of those points, because I, in principle, support the idea of further national parks. However, as I noted earlier, whilst getting the desire for those, there are questions to be asked and questions to be answered here around prioritisation, justification and the scale of the demand. Thank you very much, Mr Dey. Edward Mountain. We have all but Alison Johnstone. Mr Mountain, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank my colleague Finlay Carson for bringing the importance of establishing new national parks to the chamber this afternoon and securing time for this debate. As we have heard already, Scotland only has two national parks, Loch Lomond and the Trossits and the Kangorms national park. Together, they only cover about 8 per cent of Scotland's land area, which seems far too small an area for a country so beautiful as Scotland. Now, when the Kangorms national park was formed, I was actively involved in land management in the Kangorms. In the run-up, I remember attending numerous meetings and discussions about the proposed national park, which in principle was welcomed by all and certainly not imposed, which I think is important. The creation of the Kangorms national park was not without issues. The biggest two issues were probably the boundaries and the governance. I have to say that the discussions over the boundaries could have gone either way and were somewhat arbitrary at the time or seemed that way. The issue of governance has rumbled on and has yet to be fully resolved within the Kangorms national park authority. The park board not only has elected representatives from within the park, but also from councils that form part of the park. Thus Murray, Highland, Angus, Aberdeenshire and Persia all have representatives on the board. That can cause confusion. Panning decisions that we have heard already from Kate Forbes can be slow, especially if they are called in by the national park authority. New housing developments in the park have been frustratingly slow, and the result, as we have heard, is that house prices have risen, taking housing out of the purchasing power of many local people, something that we need to learn from and avoid. However, those two negatives do not make national parks bad. Indeed, I think that the parks are an asset and a much-needed designation which can protect our beautiful places and landscapes and the fragile areas. That is why I find it strange that the Scottish Government finds no compelling business case for establishing new parks. If we could take just the best from the two example parks and ditch the areas that stifle good and effective management, then we could have perhaps a winning combination. A combination in my mind that could streamline the management process and take it to a new local level, promote local and sustainable development, assist species recovery, as we have heard from Graham Day, conserving native woodlands and, at the same time, support local business. They could attract external investment, encouraging sustainable rural development, and they have and will continue to do, as we have heard, develop and grow the tourist industry. For those reasons, I struggle to understand the Government's reticence. Perhaps a fear of greater control being passed locally to local levels is something that they fear. To me, it seems a proposed Galloway national park that stretches across potentially two council areas could be an ideal candidate. It could keep cost low, it could promote environmental protection and it could allow economic growth to happen faster. As mentioned by my colleagues, there is an appetite for establishment of new national parks in Scotland. In fact, I believe that four of the five political parties include my own support this call. I will give you time back, yes. Okay, thanks very much Edward Mountain for taking the intervention. Graham Day has just made a compelling argument about the money that is involved, and I think that that would be something that you are saying that the Government hasn't made a decision yet, or that she hasn't even had a chance to speak, but the compelling issue is that right now there is a financial constraint. Isn't that what would be the compelling argument against it for now? Edward Mountain. When you are looking at business cases and it is something that I have taken the opportunity of doing during my business career, you have to look at the opportunity costs and the potential net gain to the environment and also the local economy. Sometimes the opportunity costs are worth being taken, and sometimes you do have to make difficult decisions within a business to grow the whole business as a whole. Therefore, I refute what you are saying, I think that delaying it just delays the chance of the benefits that we can get. I am going to call on, and I very nearly got to the end of my speech, to the Government to conduct a review and consider the building of national parks, including Galloway and West Dumfries, to see if it is a potential site for a national park. I do accept that the Government did not mention the formation of the national parks within their manifesto, but I would also say that, just because it is not in their manifesto, it should not stop them reacting to the calls of the other parties within this Parliament. They should accept the surge in support for national parks, listen to the voice of local communities, campaigners and other political parties, and then make the best decision for the rural areas of Scotland. I am pleased to speak in today's debate and to reaffirm my support for more national parks in Scotland. We have two wonderful national parks, but Scotland has many outstanding areas of natural beauty that merit this internationally recognised designation, and many of those areas are often overlooked. As we have heard, the Scottish campaign for national parks has identified seven possible sites, and creating new national parks will bring a range of environmental, social and economic benefits to those areas. There is very strong support for creating more national parks amongst most parties and well-developed local campaigns that we have been hearing about this evening for new parks in Dumfries and Galloway in the Borders 2. There is an extremely compelling case for a marine national park to conserve coastal habitats and our dynamic marine ecology. Indeed, there are convincing reasons to award national park status to any of the seven sites that the Scottish campaign for national parks has identified. I would welcome a national conversation, a broad conversation, a consultation that would take account of local demand for new parks that would seek to protect a range of natural habitats, scenery and cultural heritage, and fully involve those bodies that are already up and running and having those conversations across Scotland. I hope that the Scottish Government is prepared to listen to the Galloway National Park Association. It presents a very robust case for the local economic benefits that a new national park would bring, attracting an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 new visits every year and supporting some 700 to 1,400 jobs. The Borders national park campaign points out that the Cheviot hills north of the border are every bit as beautiful and worthy of national park status as Northumberland national park. Northumberland national park receives 1.7 million recreational visits each year, bringing in around £190 million in visitor spending. It is no surprise that, if you look at the VisitNorway website, it boasts 44 national parks. Four times as big as Scotland, fair enough, but 44 national parks. The Northumberland park model in 2013-14 brought in that budget within a budget of less than £2.8 million. I understand that the Government's hesitancy to support new national parks is cost-related. I ask that it take a long-term view that we have a discussion that we look at the role national parks play in rural development and the contribution they can make to our tourism sector. A study for national parks England outlined that, in 2012, England's national parks generated between £4.1 to £6.3 billion gross value added comparable to the GVA of a small city like Coventry. The Scottish campaign has pointed out too that it would not be as costly to establish and run future national parks as our first two, as they cover smaller areas and encompass only one or two local authorities. Their report on future governance models estimates that running costs may be as little as £1.5 million to £3 million a year—an important investment in our rural economy and vital protection for our natural landscape. Our parks, too, can have a stronger role to play in protecting our iconic species. As species champion for the hare, I have asked the cabinet secretary to consider using her powers to introduce a nature conservation order prohibiting culls of the mountain hare in our national parks. The mountain hare is only found in Scotland, but sadly, they are routinely culled in many of our upland sporting estates, even in the Cairngorms national parks. I look forward to any comment that the cabinet secretary might have on that issue. Finally, it can be in no doubt that, as well as delivering economic benefits and environmental protection, national parks benefit our wellbeing. As John Muir, one of the earliest advocates of national parks, once wrote, national parks allow thousands of people to find out that going to the mountains is going home, that wildness is a necessity, and that our natural landscapes are not only useful as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers but as fountains of life. Thank you very much. I call Roseanna Cunningham to close to the cabinet secretary. Seven minutes are there abouts. There has been a lot said in this debate about the success of our two existing national parks. I endorse those remarks. Of course I do. Part of my constituency falls into Loch Lomond and trusts us national park. I wear at first hand the incredibly good work that they do even in my job as a constituency MSP. The work of the two parks in protecting species and habitats, promoting tourism, providing social and economic benefits to the communities that they serve, is fully recognised and valued by the Scottish Government. We have debated this before in this chamber. In November 2013—I appreciate that there were members in this debate who were not here—there was a debate similar to this, which followed the publication of the report Unfinished Business by the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland. That report called on the Scottish Government to develop a long-term strategy for more national parks. Today's motion calls for a review of national parks with a view to considering new ones. Of course I am aware of Mr Carson's specific interest in the designation of a national park in south west Scotland, but, as a number of members have referred to, that is just one of the seven locations contained in the report Unfinished Business. Dumfries and Galloway currently benefit from a range of landscape designations aimed at increasing tourism, boosting jobs and bringing investment to the area, including the Galloway Forest Park, Galloway Biosphere, spoken to so passionately by Emma Harper, and a number of national scenic areas. National park status is therefore by no means the only positive landscape designation to stimulate an area's potential economic growth. The case for more national parks is understandably strongest amongst those who have dedicated a lifetime to the cause, but there are challenges and requirements that go with national park designation. There are a number of key considerations that still lead the Scottish Government to believe that it would be wrong to raise expectations over any near future designation of new national parks. Is Graham Day right that SNH does not have the budget to run a national consultation or even a conversation about where future national parks could be in Scotland? I am about to come on to the issue of costs, because I think that it is actually central to this. The Scottish Government has very real concerns over the costs that would be associated with the designation of new national parks in Scotland. I appreciate that a little bit further down the line from the situation that Mark Ruskell is raising. I will come back to that. I am afraid that we do not share the optimism that new parks could be set up at minimal cost. What has changed since the debate in November 2013? The answer is very little in terms of substance with one huge exception, which is that Governments have less money now than they did in 2013. The reality of the financial situation in Scotland, driven by Westminster cuts, is that funding for new parks would have to be found from elsewhere. Where would that elsewhere be? I note that no one—not one single member—had any suggestions for me. That silence is telling. Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport will be aware of the point that I made that potential Galloway national park could bring somewhere in the region of £38 million into the local economy as a result of that success. Given the concerns that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has about the cost, can I ask what assessment the Government has made about the cost of setting up a Galloway national park? Colin Smyth raises one national park. The fact is that the report that has triggered this is talking about seven national parks. Our two current national parks have combined annual budgets of around £12 million that come out of the portfolio budget. We simply do not have tens of millions of pounds of spare cash to divert towards new national parks at this time. The cost of even one of the seven national parks being called for would run into millions, and the costs associated with all seven would run into tens of millions of pounds. Now, I heard the point that Mark Ruskell was making about asking SNH to do yet another review. I have constant conversations right now with SNH about the number of things that we constantly refer to SNH. I think that it is not unreasonable for me to take a view that, in burdening SNH with yet more requests, we think very carefully about what the long-term outcomes that we expect there to be from the work that they do. Asking them to do something that, in my view, is premature not because we are opposed to national parks anything but because in the current circumstances we can see no likelihood of being able to assign the finances necessary in order to set one up. I need to get on just a little. The National Parks Scotland Act 2000 clearly sets out the process for the designation of new national parks and the statutory aims that they would be expected to deliver. Estimates of timescale for completion are around two years, although I note that Graham Day seems to have a briefing that suggested potentially longer, assuming that there was a strong case and unquestioned support. I am not sure that you can always just assume that. The intention behind the act is clear, while national park status can deliver clear benefits to an area, detailed consideration and scrutiny needs to be undertaken before decisions are taken to apply the designation to new areas. I applaud the desire to protect Scotland's iconic landscapes. The national park model envisaged by this Parliament is somewhat different to those that take place in other countries, particularly in relation to the act's fourth aim of promoting sustainable economic and social development, as noted by a number of members. I think that those members will also accept that there are many people out there who think that the national park designation is about conservation and not socioeconomic development. Scotland's national parks are so much more than just a landscape designation. They are living, breathing places, they are generators for growth absolutely, which attract business, innovation and where appropriate sustainable development. However, the challenge has and continues to be one of balancing needs of special areas, conservation needs while maximising the potential economic benefits of those areas, both locally and nationally, a challenge that is not always easy. Before applying national park status to new areas, careful consideration must be given to the impact on those areas, not just in terms of conservation benefits but also in relation to wider opportunities, which may be gained or lost. In that regard, I note the exchange about increasing house prices between Maurice Corry and Kate Forbes. Today, we have seen no convincing evidence on how proposals for the creation of seven new national parks will satisfy the statutory requirements that are set out in the National Parks Scotland Act 2000. The vision agreed by this Parliament is on the role of our national parks. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I mean, what the argument you are putting forward is that we create all seven at once. I do not think that that is a legitimate way of doing it. Certainly, the cabinet secretary will remember, as I remember in 2003, that the Kengorn national park grew from the Kengorn partnership, which was already in place. Will the cabinet secretary consider promoting areas and local areas that are working towards getting national park status, if she is not in a position to fund them yet at this stage? There is nothing to stop local campaigning and local consideration. The point that I am making is that, for me to lead people to expect that that will automatically result in designation, and let us not forget that there will be a huge competition about designation. I am not suggesting that all seven will be done at once. That would be an absolute impossibility, but, of course, there would be a very vigorous conversation about what should be first, and that would in itself take time to resolve. I think that there are major issues about affordability that are being glossed over here. I listened to Colin Smyth, and I take on board the two national parks that were put in place under a previous administration, but that was a previous administration that was in the glorious position of having so much money that it could return money to Westminster because it could not think of things to spend it on. We are not in that position right now, and we are not likely to be in that position in the near future. Community support is important— The cabinet secretary is almost concluding. Unequivocal local authority support would be essential, and we would have to address and secure agreement on important issues around development planning. I fully recognise the level of enthusiasm and desire to build on the success of our existing national parks. However, I do not believe that we can divert resources from other priority areas for the creation of new national parks at present. National park status is just one of many landscape designations that can help to boost the economic opportunities of an area. I hope that more attention can be paid to some of those other designations. Thank you. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate. I closed this meeting of Parliament.