Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is generous of you to spoil all our fun. I am sure that we might want to consider some of the issues raised in the petition in the first instance while you go on your next trip to area 51 and your various monster quests.

Are there any suggestions on how we might proceed?

We have suggestions from Mr Golden and that suggestion. Perhaps we should write to SEPA asking for the make-up of the local information advisory groups. We might want to hear a bit more about that. We might also want to hear what action SEPA is taking to ensure that the knowledge of local communities is properly included, given the issues that have been raised in other petitions as well. Are members content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a final question before I ask for follow-up questions from colleagues. This is called the Galloway national park, but as we have heard from people in South Ayrshire, it will go a bit wider than that. Are you satisfied that the scope of the national park is fully appreciated by all communities?

It was.

I wonder whether I can come back on that, cabinet secretary. In your evidence, you have made various references to the debate that took place in the chamber. That will include what I said, too. I suppose that I just went along with the hype; the background noise that the debate was being held against was that these things had been a wonderful, magnificent achievement and that everybody was absolutely aglow with their success. As such, it never occurred to me to think that there might be an alternative view. How very naive of me, you might say; nonetheless, that was the kind of atmosphere that was attendant on the debate.

Therefore, I have been quite surprised by how, in the evidence that we have taken, people are talking about the issue as being divisive in communities and becoming really quite an ugly stain when it comes to engagement between different organisations and people within the proposed landscape. As a result, although you can point to debates in the chamber, I do not know that they should stand as the benchmark against which all subsequent decision making must stand. Does it not alarm you that such a culture seems to be growing within the proposed landscape that you are operating in? Given that it is, how do you address it?

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. Our first petition is PE2089, lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of Lochaber National Park—NO more group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create further national parks in Scotland, instruct an independent review on the operation of the current national parks, including assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries within the two parks—including, but not exclusive to, farming, forestry, crofting and angling—and to conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of said independent review.

At our previous meetings, we heard from a variety of organisations in favour of and opposed to the creation of a new national park. We have also heard from NatureScot, which is currently undertaking its role as reporter for the consultation on the proposed new national park.

Today, we are joined by Mairi Gougeon, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and the Islands, Brittany Brown, who is policy lead for new national parks, and Lisa McCann, who is head of biodiversity, at the Scottish Government. Good morning and welcome to you.

I invite the cabinet secretary to say a few words—this is an exception—and then we will move to questions.

I welcome you all.

Members will be aware that, although section 38 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which makes provisions for local bus service franchising, came into effect in December 2023, the full suite of secondary legislation and guidance for the introduction of local service franchising is not yet in place. Transport Scotland, in its initial response to the petition, indicates that a number of substantive regulations have been laid, stating that

“The remaining regulations and statutory guidance to bring the franchising provisions into effect will be provided before the end of this year.”

The initial response also states that the Scottish Government has no plans to revisit the primary legislation to remove the requirement for an independent panel to be convened to approve or reject a local transport authority’s franchising proposal.

As has been highlighted in the submissions that we have received from the petitioner, although the delay in enacting provisions is, in their view, “inexcusable”, events have now slightly overtaken us. As members will likely be aware, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, at its meeting on 29 October, considered a Scottish statutory instrument relating to the traffic commissioner’s role in appointing the independent panel and recommended that the SSI be annulled. A motion to annul the SSI was subsequently lodged in the chamber, and was not agreed to. That means that the regulations are in place, and, indeed, they came into effect on 1 November.

During the NZET Committee’s consideration of the recent SSI, it has become apparent that the remaining regulations and associated guidance will now be published in the new year. There is a lot of information to consider, which is detailed in our papers for today’s meeting, and it includes developments relating to bus franchising in other parts of the UK. We have also received a written submission from Paul Sweeney, which is included in our papers, too.

I invite all colleagues who have expressed an interest in the matter—as I welcome the interest of parliamentary colleagues in relation to petitions—to address the committee. We thought of having an opinion poll to see in which order we should hear from you all, but, ultimately, we opted simply to invite you to speak in alphabetical order. I know that the clerks have asked you, if you can, to complement, rather than repeat, one another’s evidence. The committee would very much appreciate that.

We will begin with Neil Bibby.

Thank you, Mr Bibby. You have illustrated your evidence with examples from communities adjacent to my constituency in Eastwood, where there are similar concerns. Given that I regularly—indeed, almost daily—receive representations on the inadequacy of bus services, particularly in what is a growing community that feels that it is not at all well served by those services, I understand the points that you have made.

I invite Patrick Harvie to contribute.

Thank you. A number of suggestions have been made that I think that we might want to pursue, and I would note those made by Mr Sweeney and Mr Simpson, particularly in relation to legislation and other such matters. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Perhaps we could also ask SPICe to have a look at the proposed better buses bill at Westminster and to give us a little bit of information on that.

Do you want to comment, Mr Ewing?