Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that it is perfectly reasonable to invite others to contribute evidence to the committee, and I think that we are going to hold the petition open.

As a final thought, I might not usually do this but, if any of those who have addressed us this morning have any other suggestions of other things that they might like us to take evidence on, they should speak up quickly now. I am quite happy for them to do so. Mr Bibby?

Do members agree to consider the next two petitions together? I propose that we discuss each petition in turn, with a common suggestion for how we might go forward.

Members indicated agreement.

You have nicely summarised some of the frustrations that we feel with the responses that we have received. Given the evidence that we have received and Michael Marra’s contribution, are there any suggestions from committee members as to how we might proceed?

A considerable number of suggestions have been made. If Mr Golden is ever on “Pointless”, I think that he might win the money if his question involves naming dams. [Laughter.]

Are colleagues content for the committee to keep the petition open and to take up those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

What has puzzled us and is the nub of the evidence that we have heard to date is the distinction between a consultation and an independent review. Twenty years after the creation of national parks, it seems quite a sensible proposition to have a proper independent review that measures their success against the benchmarks that were originally established, considers the lessons that might have been learned from that, and how those lessons might inform how any future national park might be developed.

There is a degree of suspicion about the consultation route because NatureScot, which is leading the consultation, is also the instigator of the national park and therefore, the independence of the analysis that it brings to its consultation gives people the sense of it being poacher turned gamekeeper.

Moreover, there were 300 responses to the consultation from an area where 300,000 people could potentially respond. It is difficult to be certain whether a series of consultations or engagement exercises would genuinely articulate the information that would lead to lessons being learned, whereas an independent interrogator that looks at those things and proactively asks questions might be more likely to elicit that.

We have been puzzled because, it does not seem unreasonable to look independently—as we would in any ordinary circumstance—at what the success of a national policy such as a national park has been before, two decades on, we start on the third one. Based on the evidence that we have heard from others so far, the Government has seemed quite intractable. What has been the Government’s objection to using such a review as a point of reference in shaping its approach to the issue?

Please feel free to bring in your colleagues whenever it would be appropriate for them to join in.

As members of the Scottish Parliament, we regularly hear of consultation fatigue and suspicion from constituents. It seems that there is a consultation for everything—you have only gone to Marks and Spencer to buy something but you can hardly get home before you are asked to fill out a consultation on what your experience was like when you were buying it. People are exhausted with all of it. There is a growing suspicion in many people’s minds—which, as an MSP, you must recognise—that consultations are now just part of the fabric of everything that gets done, and that they are there to serve the interests of the original proposal, rather than genuinely to allow people the opportunity to contribute their own thoughts if they are counter to what has been proposed.

I participated in a consultation, in which I was allowed only 100 characters to express what I thought. I do not suggest that that is happening here, but do you understand why we have had so many responses from people saying that the consultation itself is—potentially, in the minds of some people—a flawed mechanism, particularly when it is being conducted by the people who are promoting the idea in the first place?

I am grateful for that broadcast to the nation, Mr Ewing, and I commend you, as I always do, for delivering it with impeccable grammar from start to finish.

Does that mean that you concur with the suggestion of bringing the cabinet secretary to a future meeting?

Good morning and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. The first item on our agenda is a decision on taking agenda item 4, which relates to the consideration of evidence that we are about to hear, in private. Are members content to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We do not have a national park in Eastwood, so I do not come to this with any particular axe to grind. I always say that what motivates us here is not any party-political position, but is the petition—our responsibility is to try to articulate and take forward the interests of the petitioner as best we can.

I will kick off. We already have two national parks, so what was it that caused the Government to say, “We will now develop another national park?” What was the motivating factor at that point?

PE2006, lodged by Ewan Miller, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors or to lay regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors.

Our colleague, Sarah Boyack, joins us once again in our consideration of the petition. Good morning, Sarah.

We last considered the petition on 7 February, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to seek an update on work to finalise and publish the voluntary code of practice for land-owning maintenance companies. The response from the minister highlights the mechanisms that are available to home owners to remove property factors, which have led her to the view that legislative change at this time is neither necessary nor proportionate. The minister’s response also notes that work has not progressed on the voluntary code of practice as anticipated, and adds that

“this code would apply only where homeowners pay a land-owning land maintenance company for management of the open spaces that are owned by the land maintenance company.”

Sarah Boyack, do you have anything to say to the committee in light of what has progressed—or not progressed, as it turns out—since we last considered the petition?