 The next item of business is a debate on motion 4799, in the name of Lorna Slater, on Scotland's national parks. I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons. I call on Lorna Slater Minister to speak too, and to move the motion up to 13 minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Scotland is a rich, diverse and beautiful country. From the rolling hills and the borders, to the rugged mountains and sinuous sea locks of the west, the crofting landscapes and towering sea cliffs teeming with noisy sea birds on our many islands, the vast patterned peatlands of the flow country, the vibrant agricultural landscapes of lowland Scotland. Throughout the country, over millennia, the people of Scotland have worked with and shaped their natural surroundings, and in doing so have shaped their distinctive cultural heritage, a heritage that is famous around the world that draws millions of visitors every year. I therefore find it astonishing that we have just two national parks, and I know that this is a view shared by many here. Our national parks are part of a global national park movement, valuing and protecting nature around the world. This brings opportunities to showcase globally what Scotland is doing for nature restoration, addressing climate change, visitor management and a range of other issues. It also gives us the opportunity to learn what approaches are being taken elsewhere and adapt and improve them for our own Scottish needs. Our parks are more important now than ever before. We are in the midst of the interlinked crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, which require urgent action to keep our planet habitable, to keep our crops growing, our climate bearable, our ecosystems alive. We know that some of the effects of global heating are now locked in, such as temperature rise and increase in extreme weather events. No matter how quickly net zero is achieved, so people and nature are going to need to adapt to the changing environment. The window to act is closing. This is the decade when we must redefine our relationship with nature, or the degradation of our natural environment and climate breakdown will have gone past the point where they can be managed. By working with and restoring nature at scale, the effects of climate change can be reduced, and wider benefits to individuals, communities and the country can be realised as carbon is captured and stored from the atmosphere. Plants, animals and other species flourish as humans live and work alongside a thriving natural environment. There are three elements that I would now like to bring to the attention of Parliament. Firstly, the work of the two existing parks in tackling the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Secondly, the work of the parks in welcoming and managing visitors. Thirdly, to highlight the national conversation, which is currently under way to capture what stakeholders most value about national parks and how that will inform the identification of the areas to be taken forward for designation as Scotland's next national parks. I thank the minister for giving way. Would the minister not consider that there should be a fourth consideration added to the three that she has mentioned, namely the fourth aim of the national parks in Scotland, which are the social and economic development of the areas' communities, which is extremely important to people who live, as I represent, in the national park in Cairngorff? I thank the member very much for that intervention. He is quite right that the aims of our parks were established in the National Parks Scotland Act of 2000 and, as a reminder to all of us, the four aims are to conserve and enhance natural and cultural heritage, to promote sustainable use of resources, to promote understanding and enjoyment, and, as the member rightly points out, to promote sustainable, economic and social development. That means that our existing national parks in Loch Lomond, the Trossacks and Cairngorffs are at the forefront of actions to tackle climate change and nature restoration and also welcoming, educating and managing millions of visitors each year. Loch Lomond and Trossacks and Cairngorffs park authorities devote significant resources to lead and work with partners and their communities on nature restoration and climate mitigation within their park areas. As we know, halting and reversing biodiversity loss through restoring nature and addressing climate change are inextricably linked. Both park authorities set out their ambitious plans for the natural environment in their areas through the future nature proposals in Loch Lomond and the nature plan in the Cairngorffs. Both recognise that we can no longer be passive in protecting the biodiversity that we have, but need to be proactive and vigorously rebuilding and restoring nature. To do this, both parks are working with partners to address head-on pressures such as overgrazing, pollution, invasive non-native species and climate change. To restore degraded areas and better link areas to give nature the space to adapt to our rapidly changing environment. There can be no better places to see the aspiration becoming a reality than with the Cairngorffs Connect partnership, with its 200-year vision to restore ecosystem functioning and biodiversity over huge areas of the eastern part of the national park, or the work to secure and restore the great Trossaxe forest over 160 square kilometres within the heart of Loch Lomond and Trossaxe national park. Running through many of the projects that the parks are leading is active community involvement to identify and prioritise areas for action and to mobilise the volunteer workforce who carry out much of the ground action, such as removal of invasive non-native plants. We know that national parks must have a coherent identity as well as being of outstanding quality in terms of natural and cultural heritage, but they must not simply become playgrounds or museums for visitors. How will you ensure that social and economic needs of the host communities will be met, particularly given the importance of food security right now? I thank the member very much for the intervention and, of course, the member is correct. Our parks are living breathing dynamic spaces with communities in them who live and work there, including our agricultural communities. As I progress through my speech, we will talk about the process for creating the new national parks and how we can make sure that stakeholder views are incorporated. A striking example of initiatives that we have in our parks and how these initiatives can draw in additional funding is the £12.5 million that was recently secured from the National Lottery Heritage Fund for the Heritage Horizons Ceringorms 2030, People and Nature Thriving Together project. The work of chasing down and securing additional funding for nature restoration does not stop with individual landscape-scale projects. Both of our parks are in partnership with the other national parks in the UK to develop a private finance mechanism to bring in investment for nature restoration. Through the Wild Strathfillan project, the Loch Lomond Authority are piloting approaches to levering significant private investment to improve ecosystem services and restore nature. Our two parks host internationally important habitats such as Atlantic Rainforest and High Altitude Moorland and Grassland and the plants and animals which rely on them, including unique species such as the Scottish Cross Bill, a distinct subspecies of the Common Cross Bill. Sadly, one of our iconic species of the Caledonian Pinewoods, the Capercaillie, has over recent decades seen sharp declines in its population due to pressures of climate change and disturbance. However, the Capercaillie project has recently secured £2.9 million to allow local communities to deliver habitat management and improve visitor management to reduce the disturbance for those magnificent birds. I am most grateful to the minister's indulgence. Does the minister recognise that one of the reasons for the decline of the Capercaillie and the lack of new members of the species is the lack of predator control in particular of foxes and that NatureScot now recognise that that was a mistake and are seeking to correct it? Does the minister support that? I thank the member very much for the intervention. I discussed this at a meeting with the park authorities last week and they are looking at a broad range of measures for improving Capercaillie numbers and that includes visitor management to reduce disturbance and also looking at predator control. This brings me to the crucial role which both parks play in welcoming visitors, informing them of key messages around the climate and biodiversity twin crises and managing some of the negative effects of high numbers of people, particularly at popular sites. As we have emerged from the pandemic lockdowns with travel abroad severely constrained, the people of Scotland have looked to the countryside on their doorstep for recreation. Both parks now have excellent ranger services to ensure a positive and safe experience for visitors, residents and nature in our national parks. Presented with all this evidence of the importance of the work that parks do, how popular they are to the millions who visit them and how enthusiastically various regions of Scotland are already campaigning to host, there is undoubtedly a compelling case to expand Scotland's national park network. I am delighted that there have been several areas who have put themselves forward as candidates for national park status, some with long-established campaign groups, and I hope to see more join the discussion over the coming months. Certainly. Martin Whitfield I am very grateful to the minister giving way. Can she give an explanation as to why it has taken so long to be looking at a third, possibly hopefully a fourth, fifth and sixth national park here in Scotland? Absolutely. I thank the member for the question. I will cover the timescale in the course of my speech so I will continue so that we get to the point where I can answer the member. This process of creating a new national park, or at least one new national park, gives us the opportunity to have a national discussion, not just about where new parks should be, but also about what our national parks are for. Beyond the aims set out in the National Parks Scotland Act of 2000, there has been no criteria set for what national parks should be delivering for Scotland, their communities, as some members pointed out, or nature. On 13 May, I launched a national discussion, which will carry over into the summer months about what stakeholders and the public value most about national parks and how that should be delivered. The results of that national discussion on the future for national parks will do two things. Firstly, it will help existing park authorities to evaluate and adapt what they are delivering across their remit through their partnership plans. Secondly, it will allow the development of an evaluation framework to identify the next areas to take forward to designation. This is essential, as it allows for an open, fair and transparent process. This will include a consultation on the draft evaluation framework to ensure that it meets the needs, so it meets the aspirations of stakeholders for the new national parks and ensure that there is no unintentional bias, which may favour one area over another. Officials are also working to put in place support for communities, local authorities or interest groups in putting together a nomination for national park status against the criteria established in that evaluation framework. Furthermore, although it will be my responsibility to approve the areas to be taken forward to the statutory process outlined in the act, the decision I take will be guided by advice I receive from an independent panel, which will be established to consider all nominations and rank them against the criteria contained in the evaluation framework. As you will appreciate, identifying the areas to be designated in national parks is only half the story, as then the legal process laid out in the act to define the boundary of the new parks and establish the new authority must be followed, so that process follows a specific timeline. Can you set out what exactly the process will be if you have multiple bids from multiple different organisations or individuals within one potential area to be designated? How will you deal with that? Specifics of the evaluation criteria have not yet been established, so we are going to be looking at the process as we go forward. The member raises an excellent point, and, of course, it is something that we will absolutely need to be able to accommodate so that we have coherent applications into the process that can be evaluated fairly. Just continuing on to the point about the process for creating the parks. Once we have followed the legal process to be laid out in the act, this will further entail scrutiny of the areas against the aims and conditions specified by that act and further consultation led by Nature Scott in their role as rapporteur. There is then the progression of the designation order through parliament to further evaluate and shape the proposal, including further opportunity for stakeholder input, so the member can see that there are many steps we have to go through to follow the correct legal process. Lastly, I am very much looking forward to the debate today to hear members' views on what they think the role of our national parks, established and new, should play in their local areas and nationally for the benefit of nature, the people of Scotland and visitors to our beautiful country. I welcome the constructive approach that has been taken by my labour colleagues and the support that they have shown for our proposal to create new national parks in Scotland, and I am happy to support the amendment in Colin Smyth's name. I also welcome that my Conservative colleagues recognise the important role our national parks play for the environment and the economic benefits that they can bring to local communities. However, they need to acknowledge that such an important process requires fulsome consultation. In addition, there is a clear legislative process that needs to be followed as set out in the founding legislation. Minister, could I ask you to bring your remarks certainly? Therefore, I cannot accept calls to shortcut the process or shorten it at the expense of public engagement. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Brian Whistle to speak to and to move amendment 4799.1 up to nine minutes, please, Mr Whistle. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward such an important debate. I think that we are broadly agree with the sentiments expressed in their motion, but we do feel somewhat of a broad brush. Our amendment seeks to develop the point somewhat while also noting that there is a clear desire from those behind the campaigns for new national parks and the public more widely to move faster on designating Scotland's next national park. We note that the motion makes a number of references to the evaluation process and stakeholder engagement, but there is a clear sense from across Scotland that the Scottish Government has been dragging their feet on this issue. Similarly, we are of the view that the value importance of Scotland's rural landscaping communities deserve greater recognition than they receive. While designation of one or hopefully more national parks could go some way to addressing this, we feel that it will not go far enough in terms of recognising the many areas across Scotland that perhaps are not suited to be a national park and deserve greater access to support and opportunities to preserve and capitalise on their natural assets. We will be supporting Labour's amendment proposed by Colin Smyth. It is clear that there is a broad agreement across the chamber about the value of national parks and the potential to make a substantial contribution not only to the local area but also to the wider twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity. It is biodiversity where I really want to begin this debate, not least because it is often overshadowed in discussions by climate change, but of course is no less important. There has been little change to the decline of biodiversity in the last 10 years under the current Government. The 2019 State of Nature Scotland report found that the overall abundance and distribution of Scotland's species have declined, including in the last 10 years, and the pressures that drive biodiversity loss are collectively continuing to have a negative impact on nature. The report says in a quote that there has been no letter in the net loss of nature in Scotland. It should come as no surprise that, in 2021, RSPB and the National History Museum found that Scotland is in the bottom 25 per cent of nations and territories for biodiversity intactness, ranking in the lowest of the G7 countries. We require an integrated land management that can be used by park authorities, encouraging a co-operative framework between sectors and bringing down silos. Farming and forestry can be viewed as sectors to narrow biodiversity. However, with proper support, those sectors can deliver on their biodiversity targets, as well as their commodity markets. In her priority of government's statement, the First Minister announced the aim to protect and enhance her natural habitats by increasing woodland creation by 50 per cent. However, planting non-native sicker is not increasing woodland, nor is it addressing biodiversity. Having a more reversed forestry plan with the diversity of native trees has been shown to store more carbon emissions than sicker alone and lead to a more resilient ecosystem. I understand that the target for a native species is about 40 per cent of new trees planted, but does the member not recognise that sicker spruce has excellent qualities? That is the essential raw material for our panel product sector and our timber sector, which have operations within our national parks. I thank the member for intervention. Of course, he is absolutely right, but I think that there has been such a predominance of sicker over the past few while that it is recognised that an overplanting of sicker does decrease our biodiversity in those particular areas. Having a more reversed forestry plan with the diversity of native trees has been shown to store more carbon emissions than sicker alone and lead to a more resilient ecosystem, as I said. I wanted to use the example of the Loch Lomond and Troslox national park, the Waterfall project. Removal of self-seeded sicker spruce trees allowed grass and other native wetland vegetation to return, as well as increasing the diversity of native plants for waterfalls. A healthy wetland ecosystem will absorb more carbon and retain more water, helping to prevent flooding downstream. Marine diversity is another area that is often overlooked. For example, 12 breeding seabird species have declined in abundance by an average of 38 per cent between 1986 and 2016. The plankton communities have changed in response to climate change, which of course impacts fishing birds higher up the food chain. That management of marine environments by Marine Scotland is often indiscriminately, which does not allow for targeted and effective management of our blue resource. Siloed management of our environments on a whole drastically reduces our management effectiveness. Organisations from NGOs to fisheries unions are calling for more integrated management on land and in sea. There is a lack of data from Marine Scotland to allow them to make better management decisions, however third party groups have done considerable research that is publicly available for them to adopt and use. Use of national marine parks can help to establish Scotland's blue economy and blue carbon, much like it has aided Scotland's rural economy and peatland carbon sequestration. Using the national parks to do so would help with sustainably developing this economy with increased collaboration with local stakeholders through the park authorities. We can put management of these areas back into local hands with traditional knowledge. Farmers and landowners play an important role in this. Conservation efforts need to be based on co-operation and collaboration, not unilaterally imposing restrictions. National parks represent an opportunity for farmers to diversify their businesses, making the most of opportunities around tourism and direct to market sale of local produce. Indeed, a number of farmers in the proposed Galloway national park are very supportive of this proposal. National parks should empower farmers given them more opportunities to farm sustainably and earn a better living and be even more effective custodians of the countryside. Members will know that it is rare in a speech by me in this chamber that does not manage to include a reference to health, and they would be delighted to know that this one is no exception. I think that the motion acknowledges cultural, social and economic benefits of national parks. Equally, it is important to recognise the substantial contribution that national parks and Scotland's rural areas more widely can make to public health. Without wishing to be accused of bias, there are, of course, few places in the world better suited to walking and cycling than the Scottish countryside. The benefits of physical activity of any kind from walking to mountain biking are well recognised. Regular physical activity can help prevent illness, aid recovery and improve mental health. National parks and Scotland's countryside more widely are an incredible, in my view, undervalued asset in the fight to improve public health. We are already seeing many communities in rural areas recognising this and taking action. Any action that we can take here which encourages people to make the most of what our countryside has to offer is inevitably going to make a difference to public health. At a time when our NHS is under pressure, like never before, it must surely be incumbent on us to promote steps that people can take to prevent illness and encourage a healthier lifestyle. There is no question, Deputy Presiding Officer, that Scotland needs more national parks. We in these benches are clear that the Galloway's proposal is one that we support. I am sure that my colleague Finn Carson will no doubt expand on this, but a successful bid from them should not be the end of the discussion about national parks for another two decades. The Scottish Government cannot go two days without demands for new powers, but it has managed 20 years without really using the powers that it has to designate national parks. As our motion sets out, we want the definition of what constitutes a national park to be as wide as possible. We should be thinking about what other options might be available to give our rural communities perhaps smaller areas than national parks which provide these opportunities and tools necessary to protect their local environment and capitalise on local assets, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mr Whittle, did you move the amendment? I do apologise and I move the amendment in my name. Before I call the next speaker, I remind everybody who is seeking to speak in the debate to make sure that the requests to speak buttons are pressed and continue to be pressed, not looking at anybody in particular. I now call Colin Smyth to speak to and move amendment 4799.2, up to seven minutes please. More than two years ago, Parliament unanimously agreed to support an amendment at table, not only recognising the contribution that our current national parks make, but agreeing that new national parks should be designated in Scotland. Slowly but surely, we edge towards the will of Parliament and it can't come quick enough. It's more than two decades since my colleague Sarah Boyack, I have to say, hasn't changed a bit, took the National Parks Scotland Act 2000 through Parliament. That ground-breaking legislation paved the way for the then Labour-led Scottish Executive to create Loch Lomond in the Trosyx National Park, which my colleague Jackie Baillie, who also hasn't changed a bit, I have to say, will have much to say about in her contribution. It also led to the Cairngorn's National Park in 2003. Labour is proud of that achievement and the real social, economic and environmental benefits that those parks have delivered for those areas. Presiding Officer, it is very much unfinished business. When those parks were created, no one anticipated the SNP would fail to continue the work that my colleagues began in creating national parks in Scotland. Despite our standing natural beauty, despite the fact that natural national park status is a successful and internationally recognised brand, we still have just two here in Scotland, which the minister rightly said is astonishing. Compare that with 10 in England and three in Wales or indeed Norway, which has 47. Given a world-class scenery, the protection and management that national parks provide for that scenery and the benefits to tourism and rural development of the national park brand, the case for expanding the number of parks in Scotland is clear, and it has been for years. That is why Labour's long-standing policy has been to do just that. Presiding Officer, it is no secret that I have been very vocal in my view that one of those new parks should be in Galloway, a proposal that has significant public support, including from Dumfries and Galloway Council, as far back as when I chaired the Council's Economy and Environment Committee, as well as from councils in Ayrshire. With an internationally designated UNESCO biosphere, the first dark skies park in Scotland, the stunning Galloway forest, a rich mosaic of farmland, so important to deliver that food security and amazing wildlife, Galloway has been a national park in waiting for years. Indeed, it is five years since the report for the Galloway national park association revealed that a new national park could add between 250,000 and 500,000 new visits each year to Galloway and South Ayrshire. Worth 30 to 60 million in additional spend, helping to create and support between 700 and 1,400 additional jobs to complement existing jobs in crucial sectors such as agriculture. That really could be game changing in a local economy in one of the most peripheral parts of Scotland, whose challenges of low-pay and outward migration of young people are very much well documented. That is why, Presiding Officer, if the Government is serious about a more inclusive economy, it is vital that the criteria for new national parks recognises those areas where the potential economic boost will be greatest, for example areas that do not currently have the highest visitor numbers and are too often forgotten. As well as Galloway, there are other areas that would receive such a significant economic boost from national park status, including the Scottish Borders. The southern part of the borders, in particular, which is that the favoured area for a national park from the campaign for a Scottish Borders national park, is in pressing need of an economic boost. With easy access to both the central belt in north of England, a border's national park would help to deliver that boost, bringing more visitors to the area. The community campaigns in both Galloway and the borders and elsewhere show that there is real demand—a real appetite—to grow the number of national parks in Scotland. That is why Labour believes that the Scottish Government's ambitions should not be limited to just one new national park in this Parliament. Indeed, I remind the Minister of her own party's manifesto that commits the Scottish Greens to at least two new national parks and one new regional park. I wonder whether, in closing, the minister will say whether the spending plans that were published last week provide sufficient resources to deliver more than one new national park in this Parliament. Given how far Scotland has fallen behind, there would be no reason to stop the Scottish Government favouring, for example, two parks in southern Scotland, potentially reducing costs by sharing services and building on the close growing links between the borders and Dumfries and Galloway, ensuring that every borderlands rural local authority had a national park in its area. Paving the way for a new area of national parks would not only boost the economic recovery for many areas, but it would contribute to Scotland's climate and biodiversity recovery. It is two years since the Scottish Government gave a commitment to increase the protected areas for nature to at least 30 per cent of Scotland's terrestrial area by 2030 in line with the international campaign for nature. However, with the clock ticking, we currently sit at less than a quarter. Across the UK, that target is being met by designating new national parks. Scotland is in danger of falling further behind. I know that some people may understandably ask at a time of public spending pressures, can we afford to spend money on new national parks? Given that national parks bring in between £10 and £17 investment to an area for every pound that is spent, the question really is, can we afford not to, if we want to deliver that economic environmental recovery that we need, in particular in communities that for far too long have been left behind? There are benefits from being within a national park, but does it also recognise that many people who live in Gwm National Park feel that over the past nearly two decades there has been a lack of sufficient permits of new housing, affordable and mid-rent housing, which is acting as a big constraint on the sustainable growth of the economy? There is absolutely no doubt that the member raises an important point about the lack of housing in many of our rural communities. That is why I constantly urge the Government to look again at its current target of about 10 per cent of new housing being for rural areas. If we are going to regenerate our rural communities, we need to raise our ambition when it comes to developing new housing in those areas. I want to pay tribute to the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland and the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, who have led the 12-year-long campaign for more national parks, as well as the community-led campaigns by the Galloway National Park Association and the campaign for a Scottish Borders National Park, and elsewhere. I have to say time after time I have taken part in debates in this chamber when SNP ministers have said no to new national parks, but those groups refuse to take no for an answer. They redouble their efforts, they kept fighting, and the only reason that we are in a position where any new national parks could be created in the next few years is the perseverance of those groups, including community-led proposals for Galloway and the Borders national parks. New national parks are not a panacea, but they offer a rare chance to make a difference in its long-last build on the achievements of the previous Labour-led Government. I am therefore pleased to move the amendment in my name, and I hope that Parliament will unite today by committing to completing the unfinished business, which is Scotland's national parks. Thank you, Mr Smith, and I now call in Beatrice Wishart, who is joining us remotely up to six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Firstly, I would like to convey my apologies, because I must leave the debate early. I have permission from the Presiding Officer to do so, and it is in order to make my travel commitments later this afternoon. Scottish Liberal Democrats will support new national parks and the motion today. During the pandemic and its restrictions in local areas lifted, I saw for myself how people, often having lived in Shetland all their lives, discovered parts of our islands that they had never ventured to before, finding the spectacular sights in the natural world around us, and the improvement that it made on their wellbeing during that tough time. Today, I will begin with a few words about the next generation and the climate, and then speak about the benefits of new national parks and about including communities in the decision-making process for new national parks. Our parties long believed that the stewardship of our planet should be taken more seriously and considered more closely. I believe that there is great hope of this as we look to the next generation, and we have much to learn from young climate activists such as Greta Thunberg. Young people have had an incredible impact on the conversation around the climate emergency so far. The school's strikes in 2019 made a huge difference, and we saw young people marching down the royal mile and knocking on Parliament's door. Governments around the world, including in Scotland, were forced to declare a climate emergency. It had a real impact on decision makers in the Scottish Parliament, and it helped Scottish Liberal Democrats to win the argument for stronger targets for 2030 during the course of the climate change act. With support from others, we amended the law. Creating new national parks is an effective shorter term action that we can take to help tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis. For those reasons alone should be sufficient to create new national parks. There are greater benefits, as others have already mentioned this afternoon. In 1982, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries created a term that translates to forest bathing or absorbing the forest atmosphere, encouraging people to spend time in nature. We know that outdoor spaces help mental and physical health and wellbeing, creating new national parks as the potential to encourage new visitors to enjoy an area that they may never have considered before. Rural employment can also be boosted as new jobs are created to help to maintain the land, but we should consider the local infrastructure. If we anticipate that more tourists will visit, we have to consider upgrades to local roads, trails, plans for conservation of land and all that could be damaged by tourism. We must work together to ensure that communities get the most out of new national parks. Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the start of stakeholder engagement for new national parks and know two places in nature that are identical. Each community has something unique to protect and promote in its green local spaces. We must be sensitive to that and listen to the voices of those who live in and near any proposed new national park. They would be the first to be impacted by any issue, they know their areas best and they stand to benefit the most from a new national park. We should also be mindful of what we could be asking of residents by embracing greater tourism. There can be tension between residents and tourism and we need to be mindful of that from the start of the process and work-out solutions that require listening to local voices' concerns and engaging in meaningful consultations. To conclude, the Scottish Liberal Democrat 2021 manifesto committed us to supporting the development of a new national strategy to designate more national parks as part of a wider network of protected landscapes. We are willing to work with others to help to establish such a network. Our manifesto also committed to developing the position of outdoor recreation champion within government to help everyone in Scotland to maximise the benefit from new national parks. We recognise the important role local communities and stakeholders will play during consultations about new national parks and encourage them to voice their opinions. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And we will now move to the open debate speeches up to six minutes. I call Emma Harper to be followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate about the creation of at least one new national park here in Scotland. I want to focus my contribution particularly on the campaign for a national park in Dumfries and Galloway and on the governance and structure of any proposed national park, and thirdly, on the exciting opportunity that we have to create the right national park model. Presiding Officer, currently there is limited statutory criteria on the face of the National Park Scotland Act for National Parks election. I note the launch of the consultation to gain ideas on what Scotland's new national park could encompass. There have been 102 ideas submitted so far and I would encourage members to take a look. Some of the responses and comments are very, very interesting. In the designation of a new national park, there is an opportunity to look at what has worked well with our current two national parks, as well as the lessons that could be learned to design a better governance and regulatory system for a new national park in Scotland. Turning to Galloway, a new national park could provide an opportunity to promote and conserve some of Scotland's most magnificent landscapes, which we are fortunate to have across Urbony Galloway. It could attract visitors and allow a fragile rural economy in the south-west of Scotland to rebuild from the pandemic and thrive for the future, while helping Scotland to tackle both the biodiversity and climate emergency challenges. However, I have been consistently clear about this and any new national park cannot be a national park just for national park sake. It must be done in co-operation with the communities that it intends to serve, and it must not create further bureaucratic or restrictive approaches to issues such as planning, new development and many new ideas that will support addressing biodiversity and climate issues. Presiding Officer, the Galloway National Park Association has had conversations with almost 2,000 people at more than 100 meetings and events across Galloway. Those conversations, along with the consultative work, have interesting findings. Galloway needs to be on par with the rest of Scotland in economic terms, and many respondents to the GNPA engagement felt that a national park did have the potential to bring economic benefit to the region through increased tourism—definitely—job creation and international recognition. Respondents felt that Galloway's dispersed rural population presents additional challenges, but being a recognised national park was seen by some, including hotel, BNB accommodation and outdoor activity providers, as a potential catalyst for business development and expansion. Some also felt that a national park might be vital in providing opportunities for our region's young people to consider taking up employment opportunities on their doorstep. Colin Smyth has mentioned that already. Instead of our young folk leaving the region to pursue employment, as many currently do. However, Presiding Officer, there are already fantastic resources available across Galloway, and Colin Smyth has said about these already, and it's worth reiterating, though. We have the UNESCO, Galloway and Southern Air for Biosphere, Seventeen's Mountain Biking, Water Sports at the Galloway Activity Centre at Loch Ken, the Galloway Forest Park and the Dark Sky Park, and many distilleries, breweries, museums and artistic venues. Those allow people to explore the outdoors and in the biosphere, where I am hosting a reception here in Parliament in September, hopefully. It's been backed up by £1.9 million of Scottish Government funding. It's already enhancing our natural environment, educating people on nature and on the climate emergency. I have had direct feedback that these resources need to be built upon and expanded and funded for the future. I have been engaged in, Presiding Officer, with constituents and the National Farmer's Union locally and nationally who are not necessarily in favour of the proposal for a national park in Galloway or the Borders. One of the key reasons for this is that many are concerned that national park status in the area may create barriers to development in terms of planning and regenerative farming and that it may present barriers to agricultural diversification or develop new income streams. Through my engagement with the GNPA, I have expressed my concern over the potential bureaucracy that a national park could create when it comes to planning issues, board members' monetary compensation and local democracy and decision making. For example, I am aware that there has been significant conflict in national parks where planning decisions are subject to the national park board and not the local authority. I also know the challenges experienced by renewable energy investors when aiming to bring development to national park areas investment that could bring much-needed community benefit. I therefore ask the minister to give some of the responses to the consultation. I will take an intervention if it is quick. The member touched on renewables. Are there too many wind farms in Galloway? Emma Harper. Thank you for that intervention. I really do. I know that you have raised this before in chamber, Mr Carson, but I think that this is one of the issues that there are concerns about where planning at the moment remains with the local authority. That means that the community are consulted and widely consulted in order to make these decisions as we go forward. My question for the minister is that some of the responses to the consultation are asking that the Scottish Government remains open-minded about changing the structure of any proposed national park. It will need to focus on protecting and enhancing the natural environment while tackling the twin crisis of the climate emergency, but not determining planning applications or becoming restrictive to local development. In closing, of course I agree that national parks can bring huge benefit and wherever a national park is created, it must have the right model, it must involve the local community and it must gain the support of the local community wherever it is chosen to be delivered. I greatly welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, given the importance of our existing national parks and the pressing need to add to them. As other members have noted, there are some 3,500 national parks worldwide, but we only have two here in Scotland and 15 across the whole of the United Kingdom. Given that the UN has set a target that 30% of the planet's surface must be protected by 2030, there is clearly an imperative for us to do more to help realise this global ambition. As such, we welcome this step by the Scottish Government in terms of their broad policy to create new national parks. In Scotland, though it is regrettable that the SNP needed to be pushed into this position by the Scottish Greens. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am lucky enough to have one of Scotland's national parks in part of my region. Ken Gorm stretches from the centre of the Highlands and Islands into Aberdeenshire, Murray and Persia, and indeed is the largest park in the UK. In fact, it is larger than the whole of Luxembourg to give members some context. It is home to nine natural nature reserves, 60 locks and three rivers, and not only does it boast an array of spectacular nature, but it is economically beneficial to the communities within and around it. Fergus Ewing was quite right, in my view, to stress this, as well as issues of housing. National parks do not exist in isolation from residents' communities, and their needs, their lives and their livelihoods must be recognised too. Ken Gorm attracts 1.92 million visitors each year, and it employs around 8,100 people as of a few years ago, 60% of those roles being full-time. Like many parks, it was heavily impacted during Covid, with its economic value falling by 14.8% compared to Scotland as a whole, which fell 9.4%. It is a reminder of the fragility of rural Scotland, particularly when faced with major economic shocks. With that said, Ken Gorm's status as a national park has helped to preserve and grow its wide abundance of flora and fauna. According to Ken Gorm, 70% of its rivers are considered to be in good ecological status, and it has nationally important populations of salmon and three species of lampraise, as well as the globally endangered freshwater pearl mussel. Around 79% of Ken Gorm's woodlands are comprised of native tree species, and two of the park's major wetlands are globally recognised ram star sites. Given the clear benefits that Ken Gorm gets from having national park status, it seems right that this should be applied elsewhere. The Scottish Campaign for National Parks mentioned some other potential areas in the Highlands and Islands—Glenafric, Bennevis, Glencoe and Blackmount, Westeros, Harris and, of course, the coastal and marine potential on the western seaboard of Argyll. As Brian Whittle has noted, the Scottish Conservatives support establishing a national park in Galloway, and we note that this has the support of local communities, businesses and farmers in the area. Having seen the immeasurable social and economic benefits Ken Gorm has brought, the Highlands and Islands, show that it is high time to develop that model in places like Galloway, of course. I thank Donald Cameron for taking an intervention. He says that farmers are welcoming a national park. Would he not agree that there is a bit of a back and forward with some members of the national farmers union in Dumfries and Galloway? Are we a wee bit sceptical until they get more information? I am not aware of the precise discourse in the farming community in Dumfries and Galloway, and I am sure that Finlay Carson will go into that in much more thorough detail than I ever could. But the point I would like to make is that there is an attention, and I accept that. There is an attention between the potential expansion of national parks and trying to also take into account existing interests such as farming and crofting. Can I take this opportunity to praise Finlay Carson in particular as the local MSP for Galloway for his passion in pushing the national park there, ever since we were elected in 2016, he has been relentless in his advocacy of a national park in Galloway, and I pay tribute to his hard work and dogged persistence on this important issue so critical for his local constituents. What is clear, though, is the fact that this could have happened some time ago and the lack of enthusiasm from the Scottish Government to create more national parks does seem to have hampered Galloway's case, and indeed the case for other areas to receive such status. We know that the former Environment Secretary, Rosanna Cunningham, said in 2016, that the creation of new national parks requires considerable planning and it carries cost implications. However, as a fact show with Ken Gorm, the economic and ecological advantages certainly seem to outweigh the constraints, and with that said it's right that local communities, businesses and land managers are fully consulted when considering such plans. As BSSC Scotland says and rightly so, the uniqueness of national parks is the result of generations of communities managing the land, and if government wants to future-proof these landscapes, then local communities and rural workers should be central to the Government's proposal. It is also important when considering the designation of new national parks to think about how this will help Scotland to meet its environmental targets. We had a statement on emissions just before this debate, but it is important that we know and recognise that the Government have a poor record in missing its own legal emissions targets for the last three years and failing to slow the decline in biodiversity. The Scottish Conservatives fully support proposals to create new national parks where they receive the support of local communities, businesses and land managers. As Ken Gorm has shown, national parks can not only deliver positive environmental outcomes but also strong economic outcomes. While we agree that robust consultation is required, it's clear that there is a very strong impetus to do this sooner rather than later, so that we can deliver new national parks rather than drag this process out further and unnecessarily. I begin by paying tribute to Dave Fallows, who sadly passed away recently. Dave had served as a local councillor for 10 years in the Highland Council, and he had many and wide interests. As an artist, he and his wife, Lena, ran the Newton Moor Arts, Crafts and Gallery for, I think, 17 years. He was an enthusiast for shinty, photography and music, and he took to poetry in his later years. I do want to start by paying tribute to Dave. If he will be sadly missed, he was a man of wide interests and deep thoughts, as the Straspae in Bain in the Herald, known as the Strathie, had to say. Dave and I shared a great love for the Ken Gorms, the Ken Gorm mountains, the Massif, and I have, Presiding Officer, as I think you may know, climbed most of the Ken Gorms, at least it was a younger slimmer version that did that many years ago. Now confined to the glens, having come off the bends through necessity, I enjoy the huge array of attractions that the area has to offer. The Folk Museum in Newton Moor, the Highland Wildlife Park, which, of course, is home to the pandas—I have very popular the R2—going through Loch Neniland, Britain's most popular picnic resort, Rossi Murkis, Ranger Service, Glenmore, the Finicular Railway, the landmark attraction, various distilleries, Cairn Gorm Brewery. I could go on. Perhaps I should finish by mentioning the Cairn Gorm hotel, which, sadly, after the football match that occurred fairly recently where Scotland's eggs did from the World Cup, if we cloud as the silver lining, Avie Moor will once again be the unofficial headquarters of the Tartan army. Dave Fallows wrote a letter to me shortly before he died to express his profound concern about the direction of the Ken Gorm National Park and to suggest the solution. His concerns are shared by many in the national park, not all of whom will necessarily wish to speak out, not least because the park has decision-making powers of planning. There is widespread concern that there are insufficient homes, there are not enough permissions granted for homes, those that have been granted take far too long. An excellent development in the Boat of Garten, and we have lived for 15 years in the vicinity of Boat of Garten, took well over a decade to come to fruition. When it did, it should have been far larger with no detriment to the environment. In addition to that, those permissions that are granted are often subject to such onerous conditions that it can make the whole exercise unfeasible and to the cost. Many of us believe that the problem is not that there are too many second homes, but there are simply not enough first homes. This has become an acute concern post Covid in Brexit. Many businesses, every single successful business that I engage with and I engage with a lot, do not have enough staff, particularly in hospitality and in the care sector. They all say that one reason is that there are simply not the houses for people to live in, and therefore people may come for a while, but they cannot find a house and therefore, yes I will, and therefore they have to leave rather than staying and becoming part of the community. I will certainly take an intervention. I appreciate the member taking an intervention. Would he not be better putting the emphasis on the lack of housing and rural areas and the failures of the SNP to bring forward appropriate policies, rather than to blame it all on national parks? I do not want to get into the blame game. I do not think that the argument stands up, but I would point out that there were two visions for new towns in the Highlands. One is Torna Grain that has gone ahead with the blessing of the Scottish Government, and it is an excellent example of a new town that fits well in the landscape, and Murray estates are to be congratulated for that. However, the other one was Ancamysmoor, which was going to be a new town, just across the Spay from Avymor, and has massive local support. I am afraid that it did not enjoy the full-throated support of the national park. Indeed, many people thought that they did not want us to succeed at all. That is a real tragedy, I think, from my constituency, and it is a failure. I hope that it is one that can, and I certainly think that it should be corrected. The Cairngorm National Park has nearly 19,000 of a population. Y Semity, one of the famous parks in the USA, has a population of just over 1,000. The Y Semity is the fifth-larger than the Cairngorms. Our national parks are living places where people have got to live and work. I can tell you that, representing the areas that I have done for two decades or more, having lived in the park for the last 15 years approximately, I am afraid that there is widespread concern. Let me just read a comment from the Grampian Moorland group recently in response to the Cairngorm plans for a massive deer cowl. They say, we do not feel that the park is working for the people anymore. Now, what do we do about this, Presiding Officer? Well, Dave Fallows came up with a solution in one of his last communications in his life. The solution is not to scrap the park, but it is to reform the park. It is to reform the legislation. It is to create a directly elected park where 15 of 19 members should be directly elected by the people. Leonard Cohen said, bring democracy to the USA. Surely it is not that radical, not too radical for the Scottish Government to bring democracy to the Cairngorm National Park. I now call Jackie Baillie to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Up to six minutes please, Ms Baillie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I very much welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, not least because this will be a walk down memory lane, but I also get to be shamelessly parochial. I am extremely proud to represent part of Loch Lomond and the Trossacks National Park. It is undoubtedly a beautiful part of Scotland, and dare I say it, the most stunning scenery in the country as a whole. But now for a little history lesson, because the first ever member's debate in the Parliament was on the creation of a national park at Loch Lomond and the Trossacks. Brought forward by my colleague Sylvia Jackson, who represented Stirling constituency on 8 June 1999. Aside from myself, the only other people who are still here that participated in that debate are, of course, Fergus Ewing and Sarah Boyack. Sarah was, of course, a minister that took the legislation through the Parliament, one of the first substantive pieces of legislation passed by the Parliament in July 2000, the National Park Scotland Act that then led to the creation of Loch Lomond and the Trossacks in 2002 and the Ken Gorms in 2003. But it did actually all start many years before that. The Friends of Loch Lomond had campaigned for many years for national parks assisted by my former colleague John McFall, now Lord Speaker in the House of Lords. Their persistence and determination led to a commitment in the manifesto of the 1997 Labour Government to create national parks in Scotland, then realised by Labour in the Scottish Parliament. The framework established all those years ago was clearly sound, as the two national parks have flourished since. They have managed, in my view, to balance protection and conservation of what are significant national assets, safeguarding our natural heritage for future generations, alongside sustainable economic development. Many businesses have thrived in the national park. Crews Loch Lomond, Sweeney's Cruises, Loch Lomond sea planes, the Duck Bay hotel, Lodge on Loch Lomond and many more tourism businesses and let me just acknowledge the contribution of Fergus Ewing when he was a cabinet secretary to helping those businesses through the pandemic. They welcome 4 million visitors every year, and that helps the local economy, but it's fair to say that it's been a challenge too. On sunny days—we have them in Scotland—some communities in Loch Lomond have been overwhelmed by a combination of daytrippers, visitors from across the UK and overseas visitors too. Everything from litter, antisocial behaviour, wild camping and cars, gridlocking narrow streets, have challenged the park to constantly improve its visitor management. Working with the likes of Friends of Loch Lomond and Agile and Bute Council, there are now improved litter facilities, additional wardens and toilets provided where once there were none. Bylaws were put in place in 2007, reviewed in 2012 and added to over the years, covering everything from wild camping to speed limits on the lock and the registration of powercraft. A further review is coming up this year. In that context, with the Minister sitting there, I want to talk about jet skis. Jet ski registrations on Loch Lomond have increased. This has been a gradual increase year on year since Lake Windermere banned jet skis in 2005. It has risen exponentially during the last two years of the pandemic. Lots of people have holidayed at home. We've all had staycations, but some of them have bought jet skis with them. Many of the jet skis on Loch Lomond are not registered. They're launching at different points in the lock and the behaviour of some users is incredibly dangerous. Driving whilst drunk, driving whilst using drugs, buzzing swimmers close to the shoreline and travelling at dangerous speeds is becoming all too common. Enforcement is clearly challenging. When I asked the Scottish Government how many people had been charged by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service from 1999 to August 2021, the number was precisely three. That's simply not good enough. The debate now is whether to allow jet skis at all or to confine them to parts of the lock. I have to say, given the problems with enforcement, I am increasingly of the view that they shouldn't be allowed at all. I visited Lake Windermere last year. It was busy, but it was peaceful. That annoying buzz of jet skis was wholly absent, while swimmers could proceed in relative safety. In this case, conservation and protection of our natural environment should perhaps be the priority. I will leave the Minister to reflect on that. Finally, I want to mention a forthcoming planning application lodged by Lomond Banks, otherwise known as Flamingo Land. It was withdrawn three years ago because the national park recommended rejection. It is now back with some changes. It no longer destroys all of the ancient woodland, which is welcome. Buildings have been reduced in height, but the density of holiday accommodation remains largely the same. There are issues about traffic and infrastructure, and it is true to say that the community is divided. One of the key considerations for local people is whether the benefit from jobs will outweigh the potential disadvantages. I am not going to ask the Minister for her opinion that that would not be appropriate, but questions have been raised with me about the Minister's potential involvement. Given that the Minister is responsible for national parks, will she have any influence on the decision, particularly given her green colleague, Ross Greer, is campaigning against the development? Clarity on this would be helpful for my local community to understand. Let me say that, like others, I am disappointed that the SNP has not designated any other national parks in the last 15 years that they have been in charge. However, I am delighted that this is now changing and more power to the Minister's elbow in that regard. Thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I believe that we are truly lucky to live in a country of such breathtaking natural beauty. There is majestic scenery and well beauty in many a corner of Scotland, yet, despite covering nearly a third of the UK's landmass, only two of the 15 national parks are situated here, Lochlomden, the Trossachs and the Cairngorms. Scotland is more than three to the size of Wales and, yet, the principality is three national parks compared to the two. I am pleased, therefore, that it is programme for government. The Scottish Government said that it will designate at least one new national park by the end of this Parliament. That will further support progressive development, address the climate emergency in the way that we use our land and improve public and community wellbeing. There is no doubt that national parks are the globally recognised primary designation for scenery and habitats. Yellowstone, Kruger or Serengeti are only some of the names that spring to mind, each of them attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. Tourism already makes an important contribution to the Scottish economy and national parks are a brand that attracts visitors and their spending. Having at least one further area, hopefully more, recognise would be a boost to the economy and for the rural and coastal areas that may be included. In 2010, a report commissioned by the Cairngorms national park authority, Helms and Isles Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise, found that, in the first seven years following its establishment, Cairngorm national park enjoyed a 13 per cent increase in the number of businesses operating in the area and a decrease in local unemployment. The study also found that the park had a growing economy worth £398 million a year, with an increasing number of 18 to 25-year-olds being attracted to the area. It is not only local tourism that benefited the food and drink housing and forest product clusters also of strong growth post 2003. Beside the economic benefits, national parks also provide positive land and wildlife management. That includes additional resources to safeguard and enhance the special qualities of these areas for the long term, particularly how they can help to promote sustainable land use, protect and restore nature and tackle climate change. Scottish national park authorities are required to pursue the aims set out in the national parks act 2000 in a collective and coordinated way, and they have a wider range of powers to achieve this. As mentioned, there are many areas across Scotland about its standing beauty, and I believe that Clyde Murshie regional park, which makes up much of my constituency, should be considered as a new national park. Clyde Murshie is an area of 288 square kilometres, making it Scotland's largest regional park, and it welcomes over 700,000 visitors a year who enjoy walking, running, cycling and other outdoor activities. The wonderful scenery includes the heather hills of Misty Law, Hill of Stake and Brisbane Glen, stunning views such as Fairleigh Moir, the sandy beaches of Lunderson Bay, beautiful lochs like Lochscom or Kilburnyloch, Woodlands, for example, Lochherwood and sites of industrial heritage, including the now-disused Murshie variety's mine. Clyde Murshie also provides important havens for wildlife, as heather moors are home to one of Britain's rarest birds of prey, the Henharrier. Back in 1947, the Clyde Valley regional plan described the Clyde coast from Greenock to West Kilbride thus, this section of the coast, with the hill country behind it, is another area of great popularity, apart from its holiday significance. It is a number of glens roaming down to the sea, an area of considerable importance to the rambla and natural historian, and its outlook to the Firth of Clyde and the great blue jagged peaks of Arran is of the highest order of scenic value. Very poetic, I am sure you will agree. However, it was not until December 1990 that Clyde Murshie regional park was formally designated, covering and protecting land stretching across Renfordshire, Inverclyde and North Ayrshire. I thank the friends of Clyde Murshie regional park who have worked with local authorities and private landowners to bring areas of disused land in the park back into community use and make it more accessible to the general public. Not only is Clyde Murshie regional park a leader in integrated countryside management, the area also frequently demonstrates business excellence through the Green tourism business scheme and Chamber of Commerce awards. Currently, Scotland's local authorities manage the regional parks with nature Scotland's support and in partnership with the recreation and land management interests. With Norvershire, Inverclyde and Renford's straddling Clyde Murshie, it encourages local authorities to work together to manage it and cooperate in other areas. National park status would not only enhance the public perception of Clyde Murshie park, it would also provide the positive management and extra resources that are required to protect and restore outstanding biodiversity and landscapes, providing long-term opportunities for the public to enjoy and value the area's natural and cultural heritage. Finally, it would also certainly lead to job creation in one of the less prosperous parts of Scotland. I welcome the Scottish Government's public consultation, which seeks to gather views on the creation of Scotland's first new national parks in almost 20 years. I believe that Clyde Murshie regional park is a strong contender to be considered for national park status. Anyone who has ever visited its hills, Murshie and Los knows that it is an area of outstanding beauty with good infrastructure, including many visitor centres already in place. Designating Clyde Murshie on the national park would increase environment protection and lead to a greater understanding of and boost the relationship with the many adjacent post-industrial communities nearby. Thank you very much, Mr Gibson. I now call on Mark Ruskell, who will be followed by Paul MacLennan for around six minutes. Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, I think this debate opens the next chapter in the story of Scotland's national parks. A story that started with the spirit of John Muir saw the cry for countryside access after the war and then, of course, the birth of the first Scottish parks in the devolution era and that landmark legislation brought forward by Ms Boyack. Today, given the climate and nature emergencies, there's never been a better time to grow and develop our parks and I'm delighted that with Greens in Government, we're able to play our role in helping to write that next chapter. And as a resident of Loch Llywodraethon and the Trossacks National Park, I know that communities are at the very heart of our parks and listening to those voices will be critical in managing our existing parks better and establishing new ones. And that's why the national conversation announced by the Minister is so important. Now, there is a need for parks to do a lot more, including restoring native woodlands at a vast landscape scale and in tackling many of the housing issues that have been spoken about already. But the national parks agenda must also run alongside a more radical land reform agenda that empowers communities directly. I look forward to the forthcoming land reform bill and hopefully turn Minister McCallan's comments in closing about where that might be heading. But there are warnings from our national parks story about the need to engage communities meaningfully. For example, the initial sloppy drawing of the Kangolms National Park boundary was a clear example where communities in Highland Persia were ignored. And despite the advice from SNH at the time, the then Scottish Executive in 2003 pushed ahead and excluded Persia from the National Park. The community campaign that followed led by the irrepressible Bill Wright culminated in the infamous Twin Peaks launch of the Kangolms National Park, where on the top of Kangolms stood Labour Minister Alan Wilson at the official park launch, while on the top of Carnleith stood an unholy alliance of John Swinney, Murdo Fraser, Dennis Canavan, Robin Harper and even myself declaring the right of Highland Persia to be included in the National Park. And it actually took a member's bill from Mr Swinney with our cross party backing to finally redraw the park boundary. And I think that's a lesson to all ministers from all parties to work closely with communities at the very outset. Now, the pause button on new national parks has been on for two decades now. So it felt like an historic move as part of the Pute House Agreement negotiations last year that I was able to put new national parks back on the table again with my colleagues. And I'm delighted that our new minister, Lorna Slater, is now responsible for their delivery. The community campaigns for new parks have never stopped, and the work of the Scottish campaign for national parks has been critical in keeping that flame alive. And their 2013 report into options is a great starting point, although not exhaustive. And I recently ran a very unscientific poll on Twitter to gauge support for their initial seven options. Found at Galloway, Bennevis and Glencoe Blackmount, and a potential marine and coastal park were very popular. And given the success of the Jurassic Coast National Park in Dorset, I'm really attracted to the idea of a marine and coastal park for Argyll and Mull. But I certainly recognise the strong cross party political support behind Galloway in this chamber. And it does reinforce that national parks are strong economic drivers and that the position of Galloway being easy accessible to northern England could provide a really strong domestic tourism offering. But I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that national parks are there to conserve and enhance the natural world as much as they are there to enable our enjoyment. The Sanford principle that where there is unmanagable conflict between public use and conservation, then the environment must come first, is still as important today as it was when national parks were first conceived of in the UK. And that will continue to raise difficult decisions that, again, need the input of communities to get right. So the introduction of camping management zones, for example, in the Trossachs sparked strong debate and I think a genuine concern that our fundamental rights to wild camp were being eroded. But in reality the damage that we saw first hand to the loxides, for example, at Loch Fennacar, did need a strong response to stop the destruction and from what I can see it has worked without becoming a wider precedent. Ultimately better facilities for campers will help manage impact and I certainly urge ministers to look in particular at how a visitor levy could help parts fund facilities that can help people to keep coming back, including better toilet facilities, camping areas and extra ranges. Park authorities, of course, always need to strike a careful balance and as the Flamingo land proposal for Loch Lomond rears its head again, decision makers need to go back to that Sanford principle and ask the fundamental question, does it get the conservation balance right? Flamingo land in my mind doesn't and must be thrown out again. But, Presiding Officer, as my former colleague Robin Harper put it in 2020, the setting up of national parks 20 years ago must be the beginning of a process, not an end in itself. We need to see our countryside as a place where biodiversity in the environment are enhanced, our rural communities and their survival are essential to the conservation of wild Scotland. Presiding Officer, that must be the theme of the next chapter in Scotland's national park story and I look forward very much to seeing new parks in Scotland. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate this afternoon. I am a resident of Dunbar, home to the birthplace of John Muir. John Muir was born in Dunbar on April 21, 1838, and died in Christmas Eve 1914. John was known as John of the Mountains and Father of the National Parks. He was a naturalist, norther, environmentalist, botanist, zoologist and he will be an early advocate for the preservation of wilderness in the USA. His letters, essays and books describe his adventures in nature, especially in the city of Nevada having been read by millions. Dunbar sees many US visitors every single year to visit his birthplace. His activism helped to preserve the Yosemite Valley in Sequoia National Park and his example has served as an inspiration for the preservation of many other wilderness alias. The Sierra Club, which he co-founded, is a prominent American conservation organisation. As part of the campaign to make Yosemite a National Park, John Muir published two landmark articles on wilderness preservation in the Century magazine. The treasures of Yosemite and the features of the proposed Yosemite National Park help to support the push for US Congress to pass the Bill in 1890 to establish Yosemite National Park. I have had the fortune of visiting the park many, many years ago, about 10 years ago. John Muir is an inspiration to both Scots and Americans and his biographer Stephen Holmes said that Muir had become one of the patron saints of 20th century American environmental activity, both political and recreational. On 21 April 2013, the first John Muir day was celebrated in Scotland, which celebrated the 175th anniversary of his birth. Now, societies underlying health and the sustainable environment need to be measured by more than just figures on a balance sheet. I chaired a cross-party group in the wellbeing economy since it was elected last May. I have heard many MSPs state that we have to move towards a wellbeing economy, but try and ask exactly what that means and you will get many different answers. I have been working very closely with the wellbeing alliance, which urges societies to transform how economies operate. Catherine Trebek of the wellbeing alliance warns that unless we rethink who wins and who loses out, we will not have a chance of delivering that goal. Social justice on a healthy planet. Integrating individual and ecological wellbeing is one of my major ambitions in this term of the Parliament. Of course, we can explore some steps immediately, prioritising green jobs for economic development, protecting biodiversity so that our lives can thrive and having a sustainable landscape for everyone to enjoy. Now, as we use the MSP, I will advocate for the Lammy Muir to join the tropics in the Cymru on to Scotland's third national park, working with agribusiness, rural communities and environmental and other groups. There is a natural border between the Lothians and the Borders. The Lammy Muir's stunning landscape and history would attract people to the countryside, enhance community wellbeing and boost the rural economy via eco-tourism. Can I also give credit to the APRS and the SCNP for having jointly led the campaign for more and better national parks since 2010, supported by other national organisations? They set out the case for more parks in their 2013 report Unfinished Business. In 2013, they proposed that at least seven further areas would benefit from being designated as national parks. Of course, national parks constitute the top tier of Scotland's fleet of protected landscapes. However, much more work is also required to invigorate national scenic areas and regional parks that they too can address the climate emergency and nature crisis and accommodate visitors. Perhaps the minister can say more on our summing up in regards to the plans for these. National parks do a power of work to tackle a biodiversity and climate crisis, help manage facilities for visitors, promote responsible access and develop sustainable communities. It is almost 20 years since Scotland's first national parks, in what Lomond, Neutroxox and Kingroms were established. The parks, of course, work closely with their communities, land managers, local businesses, third sector and individuals to tackle a biodiversity and climate crisis. They also help to manage facilities for visitors to promote responsible access. The Scottish Government, of course, has already committed to tackling the twin crisis of biodiversity loss and climate change and has a strong track record of making significant funding commitments to protect and restore biodiversity. The commitment to at least £500 million in the natural economy over the course of this, a £250 million of peatland restoration over the next 10 years. In July 2021, the Scottish Government launched the Nature Restoration Fund, which provides £10 million for projects to tackle the causes of biodiversity loss and climate change. Sustainable and responsible rural tourism is key in connecting people with nature in urban and rural areas. It brings so many benefits in terms of health and wellbeing. Working very closely with communities will be key as we develop the new national parks. In a brief in the SCNP and APRS, we talk about the importance of visitor management. The pandemic has seen the rise of holiday at home and the greater number of people recognise the benefits out into the indoors. He is slowly in and in other areas that there is a chance of improving access to these visitor areas, doing so in a sustainable way that does not erode their value. The SCNP and APRS discuss potentially national parks service with a broad strategic remit would help to improve Scotland's capability for developing and managing its key tourism industry and making the most of its industry's expanding and environmental assets. I opened with a speech talking about John Muir and I am going to close with one of his quotes. Thousands of tired, nerf-shaken, oversaw-lised people are beginning to find out what going to the mountains is going home, that wilderness is a necessity and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only for the fountains of timber and irrigating rivers but for the fountains of life. I am glad that we are having this important debate on national parks, including a discussion of how important they are in bringing social and economic benefits across Scotland. After years of stalling on the issue, it is good to see the Scottish Government finally joining our long-standing position and supporting the creation of at least one new national park. Other members have noted the fascinating perspective that there are over three and a half thousand national parks across the world but only two in Scotland despite our world's renowned countryside and stunning scenery. That compares to three national parks in Wales, 10 in England and 13 in New Zealand. Quality is more important than quantity here but I think that we can and should do more with the designation of national park status and as our amendment to the motion today highlights, we also want the Scottish Government to explore other avenues to formally recognise and capitalise on Scotland's many outstanding areas of natural capital where national park status itself might not be appropriate. Representing Mid Scotland and Fife, I am lucky enough to represent part of the incredible Loch Lomond and Trossick's national park, the virtues of which have already been expounded upon by Jackie Baillie in her fascinating history lesson with further historical context provided by Mark Ruskell. I want to focus some of my remarks on some of the constructive lessons that can be gained from the experience of that national park. First of all, community support and consultation is vital to the success of any national park, a point made by many members during the debate. Twenty years ago, when the Loch Lomond and Trossick's national park was created, its creation was not without controversy. There were many that lived and worked within its proposed boundary that were extremely concerned about what it would mean for their communities for that area becoming a national park. It is therefore very important that the views of all those living and working in areas being considered for a new national park are taken into consideration and that the consultation is a meaningful process. There should be consultation on how the new national park will be governed, what its remit will be and what powers it will have. This is also an important opportunity to re-evaluate how our existing parks operate and are resourced, so that, over time, when we have newly created national parks, our national parks have the same capacity, the same powers and access to the same resources. Because it is now over 20 years since the original national parks legislation was enabled, a full review of that legislation, how it has been implemented, would ensure that all of our national parks are properly supported to face the many challenges that lie ahead, not least of which is its role in delivering net zero targets. I therefore welcome a commitment from the minister that the remit, powers and governance for both existing national parks as well as the new national parks will be reviewed and updated as part of this process. We also need to enable and empower national parks to operate as autonomous bodies and for them to be able to effectively carry out their responsibilities free from external pressures. As we have heard during the debate, we are looking for national parks to play an important role in tackling biodiversity loss, achieving net zero targets and promoting environmental protection. Critically, this means that national park authorities must have adequate resources to deliver on these outcomes. As an example, the Loch Lomond Introsyck's national park is undertaking a series of extensive peatland and woodland restoration projects, very exciting projects as part of their net zero delivery plans. These are the type of projects that will require long-term sustained revenue as well as capital support for many years ahead. I think I have to make the point that years of cuts to local government budgets is making it increasingly difficult and sometimes impossible to finance these projects, something that the minister has to acknowledge as part of this debate. Presiding Officer, another challenge that has been mentioned, and we have seen in recent years, is how national parks can best manage the increasing numbers of visitors during peak seasons, something that we saw coming to light, especially during some of the months of the Covid-19 pandemic. This challenge was highlighted by the Scottish National Parks Strategy project in its briefing paper, when it commented that the effort Scotland has put into marketing its world-class landscapes has not been matched by provision for caring for them. I think that is a very good point to make. This is an area where best practice across national parks can be shared in terms of how they can best cater for an increasing number of visitors during peak seasons and also how they can promote sustainable tourism. In response to some of those pressures, the Loch Lomond Antrosyc Park has introduced new seasonal bylaws and created camping management zones over the last couple of years to deal with the excess number of visitors. Without using those extra powers, the national park and the ranger service would not have been able to properly manage heavily used, sensitive locations and protect the communities they serve. This is an area that the Scottish Government can play an important role in, by reviewing existing powers available to national parks and the penalties available, for example, for littering and fly-tipping and other forms of unacceptable behaviour that we have unfortunately seen over the past couple of years. Changes are also needed to give local police, local authorities and the ranger service additional powers that can help to deal more effectively with that unacceptable behaviour. Let me conclude by welcoming the creation of at least one new national park. I also welcome the opportunity that it presents to look at how we resource and empower existing parks as well as new parks, helping them to deliver net zero targets. I also urge the Scottish Government to address the currently inadequate powers available to national parks. This would benefit every rural location in Scotland, whether a national park or not. I support the amendment in Brian Whittle's name. Thank you very much. I now call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Christine Graham for around six minutes. I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it is a privilege to contribute to this debate about national parks and indeed the importance of national parks, both here within Scotland but wider around the world. It's a pleasure to follow Dean Lockhart's contribution and it is right that our national parks should share best practice and learn from the experiences of each other and indeed reach out to national parks around the world to learn from their experiences. Beatrice Wishart commented about forest bathing in Japan, the ability to enter in the case of Japan a forest zone but a wild area and then just pause. To enjoy that moment when nature reaches out to quite frankly very stressed individuals, particularly after our recent history with COVID and the challenges that face our communities, and indeed in that moment of silence where someone is in the wilderness, perhaps we see one of the ways that we can help those as we go forward with the economic challenges, the health challenges that are facing us, and it was very right for Paul McLennan to talk about John Muir, the importance of the father of our national parks born in Dunbar, who at 11 years old moved to the US, who very much self-taught and as a primary school teacher I'm not sure how many lessons I began with the great quote, I might have become a millionaire but actually I chose to become a tramp, a man who found pleasure tramping around the natural lands of the US, a man who took himself to science fairs with inventions found his way into industry and then suffered an industrial accident where for one month he lost his sight and in that time he chose to look not back into the place that he lived or the industry he'd got his money from but to nature and in that nature to find a cure and to find a way to express the importance of the interaction between human beings and that which rests around him and in 1872 after four years of campaigning Yellowstone National Park was established in Wyoming under the act of March the 1st, Congress at that time said this will be a public park or pleasure ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and that brings me to my one slight criticism of the government's motion today that in it it doesn't expressly expressly set out the importance of our national parks for the mental wealth health and well-being of our people because it is right it can fight biodiversity in the challenge it is right that it can fight climate crisis but it is also a place where the people of Scotland can find mental well-being peace and quiet and a way to face what comes their way John Muir the father of national parks before email before zoom calls before the internet achieved Yellowstone National Park in the US in four years and it has been over 20 years since we've had a national park established here and Scottish Labour is rightly proud and champions of the protection of Scotland's national environment and we sit in this chamber today as being mentioned with only one person who has created a national park and that is my colleague Sarah Boyack what does that say about the ambition of the government between then and now despite the Scottish campaign for national parks identifying the seven new potential sites as far back as 2013 10 years later there has been no action from this SNP government to bring forward concrete plans to create new parks and indeed the green party manifesto there was talk of two national parks and now we're at one and I would say to the minister that I do have a concern that we could end up in a never-ending consultation going forward before we actually see the creation of one and I deeply hope two or more national parks here in Scotland and I would ask for the minister's confirmation that steps will be taken to prevent that because as Emma Harper rightly said there is a natural conflict there is a friction in national parks between particularly regarding planning and new housing but also renewable applications and it brings the community that live there against some of the economic entities that exist within our national parks I think the member for giving way does he acknowledge though that new national parks need careful consideration that we need to be working with communities an example that I gave where a Labour minister didn't consult with the community resulted in a very embarrassing situation that had to be re-amended by a member's bill I'm very grateful for Marcuscus intervention and he is right and that's the shame of 20 years of non-discussion having taken place non-review of the act because there is a way through this and it is about genuine consultation with the communities and people that exist within our national parks and those that seek to use our national parks the visitors and what is a shame and I really see it what is a shame is that we've had such a waste of time when actually coming into covid had we had three or four national parks that worked what a resource that would have been to Scotland going through this this period I do very much briefly want to champion quite frankly because you know there's had slight silence here the campaign for the Scottish borders national park because so much work has been done in respect of that dating back to 2017 where their feasibility study was undertaken and the work that they've done and the identification particularly with regard to tourism that sadly tourists tend not to stop in the borders but use it as a journey to pass through which is such a shame and indeed should they stop as they have done in increasing numbers it hasn't put the conflict on local resources that it perhaps has in other places time has beaten me I had much more to say but I'm grateful deputy presiding officer for your patience thank you very much indeed mr work building I call final speaker in the open debate Christine Graham for a fairly generous six minutes oh that's lovely and pleased to speak in this debate though with a tinge of irony but before I press on to say to mr Whitfield that we plenty to say plenty to say about the Scottish borders now why a tinge of irony some from a couple of sessions back may recall my failed members bill to extend the Pentlands regional park to cover the southern part of the Pentlands the Scottish government labour and the Conservatives and the Liberals oppose this though I'm pleased to acknowledge the Greens gave me support and there was also resistance in opposition which I understand from the farming community and from local authorities are returned to that regional parks are just an administrative animal and far less in twos of the national parks with the planning and other legal protections it may bestow so I'm pleased to see this change of political heart across the chamber and I know some from the previous challenges ahead now I know this is a bit of a bidding war between the various speakers and I'm right up for a bidding war I'm confident that the Scottish borders and Midlothian will be successful not least because of the groundwork by mr Whitfield campaign for a Scottish borders national park which has already commissioned and received an independent feasibly study reference value which confirms it satisfies all the criteria and I want to thank Malcolm Dixon for his briefing to me on this in passing I have sympathy for my old hunting ground Galloway and frankly see no reason for there not to be two national parks in the south of Scotland and I'm sure these would be able supported by south of Scotland enterprise but my priority of course is my own patch not for selfish reasons heaven for fend but for the following reasons and this is the sales pitch the advantage of warders midlothian is playing to see close and under pressure from a growing city population and surrounding towns pressure to expand building further into our green heritage increases accelerated by covid which has led many to see literally greener fields it's a valuable asset in terms of its landscape history and culture but it is an asset which needs protection as well as the economic advantages of national park status it ticks all of the boxes the aims of the national park in terms of the national park scotland act 2020 for example to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area we have the roman site at tramonte where 15 000 romans were posted and now the recently modernised museum Abbotsford at Melrose Sir Walter scott's pad the yes sir leif finlay castin thank you for taking the intervention would the member join join me in calling on the the chief exec and the chairman of south scotland enterprise agency to back both bids for national parks and the scottish borders and galloway national park christian grahman i can give you the time back i'm going to agree with you i'm going to agree with the member my apologies debsi presiding officer the great tapest at gallous seals and of course the wonderful building there hometown of culters candy man ali bali b song which was devised by robert colt had a mischievous mischievous worker in gallow i got into lots of trouble it's a wonderful story the common ridings go right across the borders of midlothian coal mining heritage newton grange and gorebridge paper making in pericook all that from the past and the body high street of people's harking back to our high streets of yore with lots of small independent shops then again to promote and sustainable use of the natural resources think of all this cycling and walking routes throughout the borders and extending hill walking the southern upland way and it tweets more the source of the great river tweed the pentland hills under extreme pressure the whole area is alive with a vast diversity of animal and plant life we even have resident golden eagles in a secret place i could write a book on the assets of the area and may very well do so when it becomes the national park now there's my optimism rooted in evidence then there's accessibility to major populations this is important through rail road and bus links being just a few miles south of edinburgh makes a democratic choice for a national park and bordering with the north of england bringing tourists and i hope accelerating the extension of the borders railway there will be challenges and concerns as i referenced earlier with my regional parks bill especially with the farming community and my goodness i do understand their concerns they are the frontline custodians of the landscape but it's a working landscape so they must be at the forefront of any consultation but they too i hope will see they can benefit from the protections and also the economic opportunities to diversify finally there you have it biodiversity blissful landscapes accessibility but i listened carefully to what my colleague further saying had to say about the practicalities of a national park and the residents there who deserve to be happy where they live and so it's important that we learn from the current national parks and don't repeat mistakes but again i say cast your vote for the borders in midlothian and if you've got a second choice poping jallowee thank you thank you very much indeed miss grim we now move to closing speeches i call firstly seara boyack for around six minutes miss boyack thank you Presiding Officer this has been a really good debate this afternoon i think we can all agree with that lots of competition a huge amount of pride for people's areas and a real sense that we have more to be done it's unfinished business in terms of new national parks for scotland and this debate has been a very long time coming and although i welcome the support from the from the first speaker today um launus later about another national park i'm very keen to get a bit more detail i'd like to know that it's not the national park that we will have a strategy with national parks plural going forward this was the first debate we had in our new parliament and i was then proud at that time to announce our priorities and reassure msp's that we would make swift progress on establishing our first two national parks and listening to colleagues today has reminded me that actually there were a lot of different views at the time in terms of the nature of what those parks would look like but we got on with it and in particular Loch Lomond in the Trossachs and the Cairngor national parks they were such they were long over due in scotland and i like to i want to join others for thanking the aprs and the scotch council for national parks for all the work they did before then but also since then for over a decade now to try and get snp successive snp governments to make progress i have been genuinely shocked that we've not seen any new national parks so that's why i particularly welcome today's debate because this has got to be the start because as colleagues have said around the chamber the benefits of national parks are clear to celebrate and enhance our world scenery to ensure effective management and protection and to enable planning ahead and as so many have said they are good for tourism they attract visitors to spend money and in doing so boost our local economies and as both collin smith and Emma Harper said are particularly important in creating new opportunities for our young people and as others have said they support rural development and they act as exemplars for land management and the sustainable use of resources they're also part of our national identity and they can demonstrate that stewardship of our national environment is natural environment is something to be proud of but as a couple of colleagues also said Beatrice Wishart and sorry yes of course it's brief yes i will recall a Sarah Boyack stewardship of the legislation through parliament which i commend her for she will remember during stage two as i attended the committee that Mike Rumbles a former colleague put forward a compromise which resulted in there being five directly elected board members of the national park out of a total of i think 19 in Cairn Gorm that was a compromise i think which mr rumbles negotiated with miss boyack does she feel it's time to review whether the balance is right and whether there is a need for more democracy in our national parks in scotland Sarah Boyack i can give you the time back i'll tell you what it does remind me is that when you are in arrangement or a coalition or whatever you'd like to call it there's always going to be attention between the two parties if both parties are doing their job that's what i would say to Fergus Ewing and i have i have memories that go back we're not going there today because i really want to look i really want to look forward because there was a point made both by Beatrice Wishart and Brian Whittle about the importance of people's health and wellbeing as we come out of the pandemic national parks are potentially part of the solution as as all of our natural green spaces are i do want to welcome Jackie Baillie's contribution today as she's been a stalwart campaigner not just for establishing the Loch Lomons and Trotswick's national park but for the investment to make it a success and when i look back at our first debate those issues were absolutely on on the table for that discussion that it wasn't just enough to declare national parks you had to continue to support them and i think that message has come across the chamber today Colin Smyth was right to point out that the economic benefits one pound spent in a national park leads to 10 to 17 pounds in the local economy of a national park that's hugely important and we're all missing out because we've still only got two national parks when the aprs and scotch counts for national parks produced the report unfinished business they identified seven potential national parks and this was nearly a decade ago it was well summarised in the scott's magazine in their great park debate at ben nivus majestic mountains glen afric secluded in sylvan scotland's finest glen cheviots on the border hills timeless landscape rich in history galloway lush and wild scotland's pastoral gem wester ross majesty and stone wild scotland epitomised coastal and marine park the dramatic magical coast harris a world apart dazzling beaches and amazing landscapes we are spoiled for choice in scotland there are other national parks in addition to the first two and we've clearly got local communities organising and running campaigns in the cheviots in the borders and in galloway so given that we've got this debate today the key issue is what's next and i'd like to hear from the minister and her summing up speech the number of national parks the strategy going forward not just to manage people's expectations but to lift our aspirations because i think we all expected expected that 20 years on we would have seen more national parks and as martin whittfield highlighted our amendment says that we regret the lack of progress we need more ambitious plans and we also need to make sure that we don't forget our national scenic areas and regional parks because they're also critical in tackling our climate nature and biodiversity emergencies so there's much more work that needs to be done so for those who've been relentlessly campaigning and persuasively campaigning over the past decade in particular we need to add momentum to their work today and i hope that the minister will give us more clarity in her summing up speech and in her opening speech launus later herself made the case for more national parks plural she didn't restrict herself to one national park so let's get a strategy underpinned by political commitment not just to celebrate our beautiful landscapes but to make them more easy to explore in some ways i've got an easy job because i'm not asking for a particular national park in a particular area i want more national parks so that my constituents can explore scotland can go on holiday in scotland can add to our local local environment can add to our local economies and so that their children can learn from our beautiful country there's been excellent cases made across the chamber today collin smith restricted themselves to two national parks um if rhoda grant had been here she'd have gone for at least three in her constituency and you go around the chamber people are proud of the areas they represent and as we build recoveries from covid tackle the cost of living crisis and tackling our nature climate and biodiversity crisis now is the time for action now is the time for a strategy now is the time for more national parks so let's get on with it thank you very much miss boyack i know you've called on finlay carston for around seven minutes mr carston okay debuts bryden officer it's an honor to close on behalf of the scottish conservatives as many of you'll be no doubt aware it's a subject very close to my heart having brought this matter up on numerous occasions and committee as mart ruskell will recall as well in this chamber and i've hosted campaigners in parliament over the years indeed of my six pledges when i first stood for election in 2016 the creation of a galloway national park was one of them and i'm delighted that lobbying specifically for a galloway national park resulted in being included in the scottish conservative manifesto at the last election i've just started if you let me make some progress thank you clearly the creation of new national parks in scotland is supported by cross party msp's but i join collin smith and beatrice wishert who have raised their concerns about the baffling situation when we only have two national parks particularly in light of the climate and biodiversity crisis this debate should serve as a hurry up for this government to do what it should have done years ago and accelerate the process to trigger the legislation to designate new national parks in scotland the birthplace of the father of national parks john of the mountains john muir is mentioned by paul of dunbar mclaren john muir activism's help to preserve the world famous usemity valley visited by myself paul mclaren and fergus ewing and not all at the same time i should add but his example is served as an inspiration for the preservation of many other wellness areas and it's a shame that his example didn't inspire the smp government to take action before now donal cammer mentioned that in 2016 former cabinet secretary zanna Cunningham said the creation of national parks requires considerable planning and it carries cost implications and in 2019 Derek Mackay implied that national parks would stymie economic opportunity sterilising a whole part of the south of scotland now these statements are quite bizarre given that while the scottish government invests around 13 million in its two current national parks it results in a return on investment of between 10 and 17 pounds for every pound spent and that's not even to speak of the significant environmental benefits 20 years ago the two existing national parks were created and it's fair to say that mistakes have been made along the way as mentioned by fergus ewing and mark ruskell particularly with regards to the ambitions of the host communities and we must learn from this and Dean Lockhart touched on the controversy of the regional consultations all those years ago and how it must be improved in the words of the scottish government national parks serve as a model for sustainable development and with that are central to rural economic development and recreation sustainability and conservation efforts now that statement can only be become reality if each national park has carefully crafted aims and objectives and policies to ensure it addresses the unique characteristics of each different location Emma Harper mentioned the importance of the right model and and it's we absolutely need the right model in the right place the cairngorn's model appears to focus primarily on environmental protection the lachloman and truscox model could be argued to have a focus on managing visitor numbers and management enforcement to address some of the issues raised by Jackie Baillie Sir Alec Ferguson often referred to the creation of a national park light ensuring the remit and outcomes of legislation marks the desires and wishes of local communities performing in Galloway's a real springboard to address the special needs of Galloway's unique mix of extensively land use shaped land and natural landscapes I'll take an intervention Christine Graham it's very gracious of you Mr Carson as I'm going to write with you and others to Professor Russell Greggs of south of Scotland enterprise could you just put on the record that your second choice I understand your first choice we'd be the Borders in Midlothian if you had a B plan too many use in that intervention Finlay Carson thank you very much the member can put on record or the official port can report on record that the borders application would be my second preference without without question this is an exciting and unique opportunity to introduce greater flexibility in the overall design of national parks and I hope that calls by Fergus Ewing and others can bring about ongoing adaptation and flexibility of the legislation and policies to match communities expectations now and in the future galloway has been a national park in waiting since 1945 when the ram's report described it as being eminently suitable for such status nothing has in fact changed since then and I believe it is formidable the formidable backing thanks to the galloway national park association who have garnered public support and tremendous enthusiasm across a variety of stakeholders we've got all the three councils local MSPs to support the proposal over 100 meetings online showing 80 per cent in favour over a thousand members business champions and young supporters and over 400 young people have signed a peer led petition in support all that said I still believe that it's critical that after the initial consultation a full and broad economic impact assessment and feasibility study is carried out including any positive or negative impacts on our existing businesses particularly our agricultural businesses whose priority remains to feed the nation there are good reasons for champion galloway national park not least that it already meets all the national park tests as we heard from collin smith it has the potential to boost the economy in the south west corner of scotland that struggle to find employment opportunities for its young people and fergus you mentioned the lack of housing but much of this is down to failures of other policies you should not be seen as a barrier to the bring in a national park and the benefits it can bring and while donal cameron rightly highlighted the notable national park credentials of his region creating a national park in galloway ticks all the right boxes especially as the area already has a number of designations namely three national scenic areas the uk's largest national reserve in wigton bay the galloway and southern airshare biosphere and europe's first dark sky park none of them cut it like the national park designation would galloway has a strong a long-standing problem with its economy and retaining its population national park designation with both a conservation and sustainable development objective could really bring transformational change for the area galloway absolutely has a coherent identity and is outstanding quality in terms of both natural and cultural heritage but national park status must not create a museum or playground for visitors it must be forward looking for many national park will be where they live and work the social and economic needs of all communities both in settlements and disperse across the countryside must remain of paramount importance presiding officer along with the galloway national park association I would like to thank the scotches campaign for national parks for their work over the years the late and my much missed predecessor Sir Alec Ferguson the former presiding officer of hollywood was also the president of scnp like me alec campaign tirelessly on behalf of galloway and in his words scotland has two national parks it's time they had some children it would be wonderful for us to finish the business and be part of delivering new national parks on his behalf thank you very much indeed Mr Carson I now call on mary mcallan to wind up the debate for around nine minutes minister thanks presiding officer and firstly thank you very much to all the members who have participated in today's debate we've covered a lot of ground and open intended when considering our existing national parks and their contribution to addressing the great existential challenges of our time namely the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change we've also considered what they mean to communities living in and around them and how visiting them is managed we've discussed in depth how stakeholders and the public are to be involved in shaping the criteria which my colleague Lorna Slater will use to identify the next area for national park status and before moving to consider some of member's reflections from today I should like to stress again how central our natural environment is to those dual challenges of avoiding climatic and ecological breakdown that I mentioned previously Scotland has what are still regarded as some of the if not the most ambitious emission reduction targets in the world and prior to coming to the chamber today my colleague Michael Matheson was able to confirm to Parliament that Scotland has met its 2020 target in this regard and while these are reflective of a period of unique national and international difficulty which no one would want to celebrate or see repeated for that matter it does show progress and as my colleague Lorna Slater has mentioned we will complement those emissions reduction targets this term with targets for nature restoration and that includes a commitment to protect 30 percent of our land and seas by 2030 I've said number of times in the chamber that we are so fortunate in Scotland one of the reasons that we can be this ambitious of these great challenges is because of the ample opportunity in our natural environment to sequester carbon and to support biodiversity and indeed to support inclusive and sustainable economic development and as Brian Whittle and Martin Whitfield rightly pointed out to support and improve public health on environment in my area be it woodland creation of which we are currently attending to 80 percent of all activity in the UK peatland restoration where through a quarter of a billion pound investment we'll see 250,000 hectares restored by 2030 be it through clean energy generation or blue carbon management or good soil management and others the centrality of our natural world to the great challenges of our day cannot be underplayed this of course poses a real opportunity for Scotland to be first movers to lead the way and in doing that we must ensure that our people and our communities are poised to benefit and as the minister with responsibility for nature-based solutions and for land reform this balance is something that I am keenly interested in and I'd like to be clear to all members who've rightly raised the importance of community interests in this process today and that has come from members right across the chamber I'd like to assure them that this is something that is very important to me and I'm keeping a keen watch on and on that note I should like to confirm to Mark Ruskell per his discussion on the land reform bill that I will launch a consultation on a new and ambitious land reform bill over this summer community ownership and progressive land use will be central to this and to bring us back to today's topic it's clear that national parks existing and to come can play a really important role here both our existing national parks yes I appreciate the minister for taking a mental intervention can you confirm that you believe that the current legislation national park legislation is fit for purpose and that some of the issues that have been raised today around consultation and membership of boards and wherever will be addressed or what there need to be amendments in the future minister thank you yeah I'm happy to confirm that I think the legislation is fit for purpose and also that I think has Laura Slater made very clear in our opening remarks and in the progress she's made so far in developing the policy consultation is absolutely key so we'll be watching very closely what comes out of that both as regards to design of parks and to governance measures that the members mentioned both our existing national parks are demonstrating how by building strong partnerships natural areas can be restored different scales from the vast great tross of the forest to smaller community led initiatives such as the capricaly project which has been mentioned the parks are also keenly involved in action to address climate change through woodland expansion and peatland restoration and indeed of these practices taking place in our natural parks can and should be an example of land use in the rest of Scotland because we know that climate and nature emergencies demand that land stewardship and its use is generally put on a sustainable footing and national parks are currently doing a great deal in this regard but I think that they could undoubtedly do more to be testbeds to develop best practice for sustainable land management and nature restoration at scale and just before moving on to some of the other substantive issues raised this afternoon Presiding Officer I should like to take a moment to thank members for taking their opportunity to raise in the chamber the reasons why their constituencies and regions would be the best place and great candidates for the new national park they will have to temper their enthusiasm for just a little while longer as we work with stakeholders over the summer to establish the evaluation framework and as we've heard this framework will be key to ensuring that open and transparent nomination process which everyone is right to express expect sorry now there was much support expressed for Galloway think by Brian Whittle called Smith Emma Harper Finlay Carson and others and in fact before being elected when I was still working as a lawyer I attended a discussion in the beautiful GGs yard in gatehouse of fleets that I know my other south of Scotland members will be familiar with where I heard campaign groups and indeed those who'd been involved in the establishment of the other parks take part in a very robust discussion and in fact the debate in that debate the tensions that I heard that night were articulated really well by my colleague Emma Harper and it's clear to me that she has a very strong understanding of the differing views in Galloway particularly on the issue of progressive land use Kenny Gibson described in detail the beauty of the Clydemure shield and its success in us as a regional park Paul McClellan spoke of the Lamar mures and the potential of borders was detailed by Martin Whitfield and Christine Graham with great vigor I'd also like to thank the members who spoke of their experience of living in and around national parks Fergus Ewing spoke of his experience in the Cairngorms and Jackie Baillie of hers in Loch Lomond and the Trossacks and I know that some of the issues that Jackie Baillie raised including with jet skis are matters which she will continue to discuss with my colleague Lorna Slater. Presiding officer in the remaining time I'd just like to address some of the other key issues raised during today's debate starting with an issue very close to my heart which is access many members this afternoon have reflected on the role that our national parks play in encouraging and facilitating responsible access to the countryside to the benefit of their mental and physical health we should be very clear that Scotland's access rights are to be celebrated it is great that they are among the most robust and progressive in the world and indeed it yes very grateful for the minister for giving me a great with me that having just two national parks within Scotland includes many people from accessing those parts which is one main reason why we need to expand the number in Scotland. I think the opportunity for more people to benefit from being in a national park is one of the reasons why the government is now pursuing it and I agree with the member but my point was that it's no wonder that people wish to spend time in our stunning natural environment and our access rights are rightly robust and progressive we all have rights over our land but of course with rights come responsibilities and the Scottish Government has been at the forefront of seeking to support our parks with visitor management in 2018 we launched the rural tourism infrastructure fund for rounds of which have now supported 66 projects across 15 local authorities and in 2020 during the height of pandemic pressures my colleague Fergus Ewing in his role as the then economy secretary established a visitor management group which led to a visitor management strategy which is now backed by recently backed by £3.9 million which is principally being used to recruit over 200 ranger posts this afternoon the question of funding has of course arisen there's no doubt that we are in a challenging fiscal circumstance our resource spending review demonstrated that very clearly but I sense consensus throughout the chamber that resourcing the creation of a new natural national park is a sound investment the benefits of which for economy environment and society present very good value for money I'm afraid I am just in my last 20 seconds but I'm glad to pick up with you afterwards Sarah Boyack. Presiding officer two concludes I just like to round off the debate by again thanking you and for everyone for their active participation in this discussion the minister for biodiversity and myself we very much value all of the points which have been put forward and we look forward to working with all members across the chamber to deliver the right new national park for Scotland and that to set alongside the existing ones that we have together they will continue to be at the very forefront of Scotland's response to the quick twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change thank you