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.

Our next petition is PE2116, lodged by Ellie Harrison on behalf of Better Buses for Strathclyde, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the process for implementing the bus franchising powers that are contained in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 by introducing, without delay, the regulations and statutory guidance that are required to give bus franchising powers full effect; amending the 2019 act to remove the requirement for proposed franchising frameworks to be approved by a panel appointed by the traffic commissioner, and instead empowering regional transport partnerships to have the final say on approving proposals; and providing additional funding to help support regional transport partnerships in preparing franchising frameworks and assisting them with the initial set-up costs once frameworks are approved.

We have assembled a galaxy of parliamentary talent this morning. I welcome to the meeting Neil Bibby, Patrick Harvie, Mark Ruskell, Graham Simpson and Paul Sweeney. We had also hoped to have Katy Clark with us, but unfortunately she is unable to attend.

For some of you—I am looking at Mr Sweeney—it is a return to familiar territory. I think that we have also had Mr Ruskell at the committee before, but it is Mr Harvie’s first appearance—during my tenure, at any rate.

Is that a potential future career option for you, Mr Ewing?

I call Paul Sweeney to speak on his written submission.

Well, there is a gap. Two recommendations were made and a delivery group has now been set up

“to drive activity relating to the recommendations.”

I am content to follow up on progress in relation to that, Mr. Choudhury, if you would like us to do so. Do other colleagues have a different view? Mr Torrance has suggested that we close the petition—