Rural Affairs Committee, 29 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 29, 2000

Official Report 207KB pdf

---

Draft National Parks (Scotland) Bill

The next item on the agenda is the draft national parks bill. Members will be aware that the draft bill was published by the Executive in January for public comment. We have invited officials from the Executive, and from Scottish Natural Heritage, which was commissioned originally to advise the Government, to take us through the background to the proposals. Members will have received a briefing note that was issued by SNH last August. It outlines the proposals that were put to the Executive.

Are not we supposed to appoint rapporteurs to the Transport and the Environment Committee today?

We will do that before the end of this agenda item. I invite Mr Ian Jardine and Mr Peter Rawcliffe from Scottish Natural Heritage to take us through the background. Thank you for attending, gentlemen. I propose to allow you as much time as you need to run through the issues; I will then open the discussion for questions.

I will make some brief remarks about the involvement of Scottish Natural Heritage and the process that led up to our advice to the Government, which was published in February 1999.

The briefing notes set out the long history of national park proposals in Scotland. By 1990, Scotland was one of the few European countries that had no provision to designate national parks. SNH's involvement began in 1997, when the secretary of state announced that the Government thought that national parks were the right way forward for Scotland in relation to a few relatively large areas of natural heritage importance. At that stage, the secretary of state said that the Government considered Loch Lomond and the Trossachs as an area suitable for such designation.

SNH was asked to undertake consultation and to advise the Government on appropriate structures and powers for national parks in Scotland and, at that point, we were given some important steers. First, we were to consider a designation for relatively large areas. Secondly, it was clear that the need to ensure an integrated approach—as opposed to a narrow, sectoral one—was paramount. Thirdly, it was clear that the policy on national parks was related to other policies on sustainability and rural development. Fourthly, we were told to look for particular solutions for Scottish circumstances, rather than copying from elsewhere. The term "national park" has no agreed international definition and the purposes and legal bases of such parks vary between countries. Fifthly, we were told that ministers wanted a solution that would allow individual parks to have powers that were tailored to local circumstances. That made it clear that the legislative basis would be divided into primary, enabling legislation—such as the draft bill—and specific orders that would be made subsequently, in relation to every proposed park.

Throughout 1998, SNH undertook a wide consultation process at both national and local level, particularly in two areas that had been identified publicly: Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and the Cairngorms. That culminated in the document, "National Parks for Scotland: Scottish Natural Heritage's Advice to Government", which the committee will have read. We also published "National Parks for Scotland: Report on the process of consultation", an account of the consultation process and how the views that had been expressed during that process had influenced our advice to the Government. I do not think that the committee has seen that document.

A fundamental question is why we should have national parks. However, a feature of SNH's consultation was that very few people questioned the need for national parks. The responses tended to focus on the implementation of the policy, in particular on issues such as representation on the park authority and its purposes and powers. The majority of people who commented on the principle of national parks were in favour of having them.

Overall, the view that statutory designation would bring a far better chance of achieving integrated management, and clearer purpose, accountability and resource basis, seemed to be widely accepted. SNH endorsed that view in its advice to Government. That is not to criticise or undermine the achievements of existing voluntary arrangements, but to say that we need a firmer, more assured basis on which to plan for the future.

I want to highlight some of the key points of SNH's advice. First, we advised that the criteria for park designation should be in statute; in countries where that has not been, problems have arisen. Secondly, we advised the inclusion of a purpose relating to social and economic development. SNH believes that such a purpose is important if integrated management is to be achieved and if the areas are to realise economic benefits from their natural heritage assets. Thirdly, we advised the need to ensure that local communities feel that they are involved in the governance and management of the parks.

Fourthly, we emphasised the importance of having a statutory park plan, to which public bodies are formally committed, including scope for zonation within a park to allow particular measures and incentives to be focused and targeted. SNH did not conclude that park authorities need necessarily be planning authorities, but that in some cases that would be appropriate. Neither did we recommend a wholesale transfer of powers from public bodies to the park authorities; we argued instead for a duty on those bodies to exercise their powers in line with the park plan. Fifthly, we emphasised the need for a system that would allow for the inclusion of marine areas in the national park system.

SNH described what it was seeking to define as a contract between national and local interests, reflecting on one hand the national importance of the areas and the national interests in securing them, and on the other hand the interdependence between the natural heritage and the well-being of local communities. Such a concept is difficult to enshrine in legislation, but both primary and secondary legislation need to reflect an appropriate balance between national and local interests, and must consider conservational, recreational, social and economic interests. Legislation must also recognise that the parks are intended to provide examples of Scotland's outstanding natural heritage at its best, and that they should be managed to the best of our ability.

Thank you. I hope you realise that we are on a steep learning curve as far as the national parks are concerned, but that we are very keen to learn. Please feel free to lead us in the right direction.

You mentioned that Scotland was coming to national parks somewhat later than other countries, but that we should consider them in an individual way, and that there should be something unique about Scotland's national parks. What are the significant differences between the draft bill and the legislation that set up parks in England and Wales?

The point about parks in Scotland having a social and economic purpose is different from the parks in England and Wales, and probably different from most national parks in Europe. In the modern context of sustainable development, we felt that that was important.

Another key difference lies in the park authorities' nature as planning authorities. The national park authorities in England and Wales are planning authorities, but we felt that that would not always be necessary in Scotland. In some cases, planning issues will be paramount and it may be wise for the national park authority to be the planning authority. In other cases, we felt that that would not be so, and that there should be the option not to have a planning authority as the park authority.

As planning authorities, the park authorities in England and Wales are much more like local authority bodies. The draft legislation tries to define a new type of body in Scotland.

I want to add a point about representation: in England and Wales, parks make specific provision for including parish councils in their board structures.

Did you take much account of the situation in other countries when you formulated your recommendations in your response to the draft? Did you consider the management of the parks and the people involved in that? Did you seek the views of the people who live in the national parks, on the way in which the parks are run and whether they had improved their lives?

We did a certain amount of work on that and published some research reports on the experience of national parks in other countries. We tried to discover what lessons we could learn, but we were mindful that we were not allowed to copy from anywhere else. We attempted to analyse experience from elsewhere without necessarily importing any of it. That extended to examining the experience of parks in other European countries, such as the French regional parks. They use a different model, in which people in an area elect to have that area made a park. They can also elect to remove that status. We looked at various models from elsewhere.

You think that some areas will have planning powers and that others will not. Do you have particular areas in mind? Can you indicate which areas would fall into each of those categories?

In Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, a great number of issues about the management of the area, in terms of its infrastructure and built structures, have more to do with planning powers.

There is a feeling that the case for planning powers for the Cairngorms park authority was less well made, in that many of the issues that affect the core area are not directly related to planning powers, but are land management issues. In such an area, a national park authority that was focused on consideration of planning applications—for, as an extreme example, dormer windows in Aviemore—would not represent what that national park was all about. If one speculates about the possibility of another national park in Highland, where there is a single planning authority, the argument for making the national park authority the planning authority does not seem very robust.

I want to ask how various interest groups would be represented on a national park authority. The bill suggests that half the representatives should be appointed by local authorities and half should be appointed by Scottish ministers. What feedback has SNH received from the various stakeholders and interest groups about how that mechanism would reflect the diverse interests of those who want to participate? I ask that in particular in relation to the four main aims of the national parks.

That is what the bill proposes regarding nominations to the park authorities. I must duck the question and suggest that the Scottish Executive should explain how that formula was arrived at.

What is important to SNH is the balance between the primary legislation and what the secondary legislation might say about how particular interests will be represented in a system of nominations. I emphasise that there should be a balance between local and national interests and that there is a need to secure places on authorities for people who live and work in the areas. If such provision is not made through primary or secondary legislation, there will be disappointment at a local level.

Your answer highlighted a point that I wanted to mention. Are there substantial differences between SNH's advice and the draft bill on any other area?

The secondary legislation might sort out any differences, such as the one that has been mentioned. There are no major differences. The board of SNH has still to formulate a response, so I must be careful. I am speaking merely as an official. SNH's view is that, by and large, the bill reflects our advice to the Government. There are some differences in the wording that has been used in the draft bill. We might come back to those differences because, inevitably, we felt that our wording was better. We would like to explain why.

I would also like to highlight the issue of duties on other public bodies. We felt that the deal to make the national parks work required national public bodies to follow the park plan to ensure integrated management. The bill contains a "have regard to" responsibility, and SNH is likely to raise the question whether that is strong enough to meet its recommendation.

What are your job titles in SNH?

I have the unilluminating title of director of strategy and operations east. Do you want me to explain what that means?

No, that is fine.

I am blandly called a national strategy officer.

It is useful just to know to whom you are speaking.

What will be SNH's relationship to the park authorities once they are up and running?

Although we will continue to have our statutory responsibilities within those areas, we have recommended that bodies such as SNH should be able to delegate some powers to the park authority. SNH could stand back and let the national park authority run some areas.

Does that mean that you will delegate those powers, or surrender them?

It is phrased as delegating powers. The view was taken that bodies could decide to pass their powers to the national park authority where that made sense, and that idea comes through in the bill.

We did not recommend that SNH should have any special rights on national parks, apart from our normal statutory duties. Although the bill potentially gives us the role of reporter on national park proposals, we would be only one of a number of possible organisations that might be called on to do so.

That is an interesting point. If SNH were unhappy with the way that the national park authority was discharging powers that it had delegated, would it step in?

We are now well into the realm of hypothetical situations. I think that SNH would step in if that happened. If SNH had a statutory duty to do something, and we felt that that duty was not being carried out in line with our statutes or obligations, there would have to be a system to allow us to take back those powers.

So the national park authority will be quasi-independent?

No, the authority will be independent. It will have its own powers, which will be given by statute. However, we hope that people will feel that the best solution is for the national park authority to run these areas. As a hypothetical example, the management of national nature reserves is SNH's responsibility. However, if a park authority had various statutory powers such as managing land within a national park and employing rangers, it might make sense for SNH to say that the authority is better placed to manage land declared to be a national nature reserve. In that case, SNH could delegate that power or contract the national park authority to carry out that duty.

How much scope is there in secondary legislation to make national parks individual? Could the make-up of the authority be made quite different for each national park?

From my reading of the bill, national parks could be quite different under secondary legislation, and SNH's advice was to try to preserve that. For example, one national park could be a planning authority, another might not. Secondary legislation could mean a different system of representation on the park authority for different areas.

The parks could also differ in terms of the other powers that they hold under secondary legislation. The minister has asked SNH to start thinking about advice on the two areas that have been identified and to advise on issues such as the relevant powers for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and for the Cairngorms.

You referred to the suggestion that there could be marine national parks, and I know that the minister is considering the idea that there could be a totally marine national park. Have you examined that concept? The legislation surrounding the marine environment is rather different, and different interests are involved. How much consultation has there been with representatives of marine interests?

We have considered the issue. Responses to the consultation exercise came mainly from non-governmental organisations. I do not know whether other marine interests such as fisheries responded.

They did not.

No. We did not receive representations from any fisheries organisations. We have not treated the issue in as much depth, partly because there were not so many other examples to study as there were for land-based national parks, and partly because time was limited and marine legislation is complicated. We have not analysed the marine legislation in quite as much detail as we have analysed the other legislation.

Given that Scotland's marine heritage is just as outstanding as that of other European countries, if not more so, we accept that it is illogical not to be able to extend national parks into the marine environment. In principle, the enabling legislation should allow for that in future, even though there are no firm proposals at the moment for a marine national park.

I am happy that there is enabling legislation in the bill, but will there be adequate consultation? When secondary legislation is introduced to designate an area as a marine national park, will there be thorough consultation with the fishing industry and with other interests that might not have thought at the time of the initial consultation that national parks would affect them?

I will not try to interpret the legislation, but the draft bill contains provisions requiring the minister to publish a proposal and appoint a reporter to consult all the relevant interests. For a park with a marine component, that would have to include fishing interests. That is certainly my reading of it.

We are progressing into the areas in which we will need answers from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department representatives. Are there any further questions specifically for SNH?

At the risk of getting my knuckles rapped for straying out of the suggested area of debate—

Perish the thought.

My question concerns sport shooting and other activities that currently take place within the boundaries of the proposed national parks. What safeguards have been built in to protect that sort of activity? Once the national park boundary has been established and the principle of the national park accepted, it becomes a public place. Under current legislation, firearms and other weapons may not be presented in a public place without being under cover or in a sheath of some sort. Has anybody raised the question of building in safeguards?

As far as I am aware, no one has made that specific suggestion. The bulk of the Cairngorms area is already a national nature reserve. That may make it as much of a public place as a national park would be, yet sporting activities have been carried on in the Cairngorms since the declaration in 1954. As far as I am aware, no one has challenged it. The point has not been raised with us.

Does the national nature reserve have the same sort of designation as a national park?

I cannot answer in legal terms, but it is a statutory designation. The Cairngorms is de facto a public place. There are rights of way and long-distance routes through the area. As far as I am aware, there has never been an issue of having to control sporting activities for those reasons.

I wish to return to Irene McGugan's point. You mentioned that you had spoken to people living in national parks elsewhere. Did they express any reservations?

We did not speak to people in those areas. We commissioned research reports on various aspects of national parks elsewhere. There was some direct contact. We funded farmers from the Cairngorms to go to France to find out what farmers in regional parks there thought about those parks, so there was that kind of exchange. I am not sure whether there were direct consumer or customer surveys in other national parks.

Our research picked up issues that can be simply articulated. If local people are not involved in the management of these places, tension can build up. The lesson from elsewhere is that to have a successful park, local people have to be involved in its governance and management. That is part of our advice.

We can point to bad examples, where national parks were designated on narrow grounds and local people objected to them strongly. In some countries, people effectively prevented Governments from establishing national parks, because local interests were not involved and there was no recognition of the socioeconomic impacts. French regional parks are interesting, because there is a system to vote the regional park away if people do not want it any more. As far as I am aware, that has only happened once. I cannot remember how many regional parks there are, but it is a fair number, which suggests that the majority of people who live in the parks are content that they provide a benefit.

Did you consult people who are living in potential national parks in Scotland?

Yes. We focused particularly on the two named areas, although there were some meetings with community councils elsewhere. We organised a series of local meetings. In the Cairngorms, it was felt that it would be best to hold separate meetings with each community council, so there were 23 public meetings throughout the Cairngorms, at which people could express their views. The reports of all those meetings are published by SNH. Inevitably, there is a mixture of views in those reports. Some people are strongly in favour, and some people have serious reservations.

We were advised by local people in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs that consultation would be done slightly differently, so it consisted of five meetings that pooled together groups of communities, but the same sort of process was followed.

On the matter of representation, in your researches into national parks in other countries, did you come across any where the equivalent of the authority was democratically elected?

I am not aware of any.

So that would be an exciting first step to take.

It would be different. I think that there are examples where there is a mixture of appointed and elected representatives, but I am not aware of any that are entirely elected.

If there are no more questions for the gentlemen from SNH, I thank them for coming along and answering our questions. You have been most helpful. Who knows? We may have to call on your help again.

I call Mr Andrew Dickson and Ms Jane Hope, who represent SERAD, to come forward. As I do not have the information in front of me and following our experience of a few moments ago, I ask the witnesses to begin by stating their positions.

Thank you, convener. It is a great privilege and pleasure to appear before the committee this afternoon.

I am the head of the countryside and natural heritage unit at SERAD. Obviously, the unit deals with national parks, but it also deals with sponsorship of Scottish Natural Heritage, countryside policy and policy on access to the countryside.

I work in Andrew Dickson's division and I am head of the national parks bill team.

I will say a little about the draft bill and its approach, although I ask members to forgive me if I repeat some of Ian Jardine's comments. As he said, the draft bill largely represents the transfer into legislation of the main parts of the advice that we received from SNH.

We are just coming to the end of the consultation period on the draft bill. We have received a lot of comments already and we expect quite a rush of comments in the next few days. We will then publish a summary and analysis of the comments received. The comments themselves will be publicly available, unless, for any reason, the people who make them ask for them to be kept confidential.

Ministers will then consider the position. As members probably know, Sarah Boyack is due to speak to the committee next week, when she may have an update to give—I do not want to trespass either into that area or into any kind of speculation about the draft bill.

As members have heard, the draft bill is very much an enabling bill, setting the framework for national parks. It also allows for flexibility between parks and between the contents of different designation orders, which is intended to allow scope for innovative approaches to be developed within national parks, involving the features of the local area and the local community. One could say that the legislation goes for a light touch.

The draft bill has five parts. The first sets out the reason for establishing national parks, which reflects both the substance of the advice from SNH and the fact that SNH wants that advice to be set out in statute, as Ian Jardine said. The advice is set out in section 1(3):

"(a) to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area,

(b) to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area,

(c) to promote understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area by the public,

(d) to promote economic and social development of the area."

Those aims should be read in conjunction with section 8(5), which states:

"In exercising its functions a National Park authority must have regard to the aims set out in subsection (3) of section 1, but if it appears to the authority that there is a conflict between"

the aims, "greater weight" must be given to the first aim at section 1(3)(a), which is

"to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area".

The second part of the draft bill—sections 2 to 6—deals with the process of setting up the national park. Again, that process is very much in line with SNH's advice.

Extensive consultation will take place. Ministers will publish a proposal on which they will commission a report from a reporter. The draft bill contemplates that the reporter will be SNH, but it could be another body. Alternatively, ministers could undertake the report directly—that is, through the Scottish Executive.

The conclusions of that consultation will be published. The process is then put on hold for six weeks before a designation order is introduced. Ministers may also hold a local public inquiry, if they wish to do so.

When the designation order comes back to the Parliament, it will be treated as an affirmative resolution—which means that the Parliament has to vote it through affirmatively rather than just nodding it through without questioning it.

Schedule 1 of the bill sets out the membership and constitution of national park authorities. There is room for different designation orders to make different provisions, but there will be a maximum of 20 members. Whatever the total, 50 per cent of the members will be appointed after having been nominated by the local authorities in the park area. There is a requirement that members may be appointed only if they have

"knowledge or experience relevant to the functions"

of the national park area. There is an assumption that members will have local knowledge as well as wider expertise in particular areas. The designation order could specify that members should have experience of the local community. There is also a requirement for ministers to consult widely before appointing the members whom they will appoint directly—the ones who are not nominated by the local authority.

The next sections of the bill deal with the powers, duties and functions of national parks. Most important, they also cover the consultation on and the drafting of a national park plan. As you have heard, there will be flexibility in relation to the different functions that different national parks will have. In particular, section 9 of the bill gives wide discretion on the degree of planning functions that will be involved. That could range from complete designation as a planning authority; through designation as a planning authority for specific purposes but without all planning powers; to designation of the national park authority as a statutory consultee in the planning process but not as the planning authority itself.

The next sections of the bill contain a number of mainly formal provisions concerning financial propriety and regularity of accounts. There is an important provision that the Scottish Executive should fund national parks and an equally important provision that each national park authority will be required to set up an advisory group. It is not specified how big that group might be, but the implication is that it could be a kind of sounding board for issues that arise in the national park area. It could also include a much wider representation of all the various interests that might want to have a say in the running of the national park, but that will not necessarily have a determining role or be directly represented on the national park authority itself.

Thank you. I will open up the meeting for questions.

When can we expect a summary of the comments made during the consultation exercise? I feel that we will be pushed for time, so the sooner we can get that summary the better.

Time is indeed very tight. I will ask Jane to respond to that question.

The consultation is due to end on Friday. We have been summarising the responses as we have gone along, so I hope that all we will have to do is to add the last few responses. Ministers will be considering that next week, so I hope that the summary and report on the consultation will be available fairly soon. I am sorry, but I cannot give you a precise date.

Does "fairly soon" mean in a couple of weeks or at the end of March? What do you reckon?

It has got to be before the end of March, so I would like to think that it will be in the next few weeks. I should add that I am talking about a summary of the responses. The individual responses will be publicly available, according to normal practice.

When do you think that the individual responses will be available?

I expect them to be available at the same time as the summary.

I appreciate that the matter is still under consultation and that this is not the final bill, but perhaps you can comment on the method on which representation on the authority is based. Do you think that it will satisfy the desires of all the likely participants and stakeholders in the national parks? Now that we are focusing more on the possibilities of the marine environment, have you had any response on the concept of a marine national park? I realise that the consultation process is on-going.

We have received a large amount of comments on both those matters. Clearly, in each potential national park area, many interested parties will want to be represented on the national park body. That may vary from one national park to another—there may be a difference between a marine national park and a terrestrial national park. The designation orders will be flexible enough to allow that to happen. However, it is clear that within the bounds of membership of a park authority there are unlikely to be enough seats round the table for every interest group. A judgment will have to be made in each case.

The bill is sufficiently flexible to allow for a marine national park. That does not apply in the case of the first two areas and Sarah Boyack would probably say that she would rather wait to see what happens in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and in the Cairngorms before pursuing a marine park. Nevertheless, there is scope for such a park under the bill.

Have you had responses from organisations relating to fisheries and the marine environment?

I am not sure about fisheries. We have heard from people with an interest in marine areas and from marine conservation bodies.

To my knowledge, we have not yet received anything from organisations with an interest in fisheries. However, there are a few days left. We have had a few comments on the World Wide Fund for Nature's petition that presses the case for marine parks.

The advisory group has been designed to encourage local people to participate. What powers does the group have? Is it just a sounding board or does it have some input?

If the word "advisory" is going to mean anything, the national park authority will have to seek the group's comments on specific issues. It would be for the advisory group to volunteer comments if it did not like the way in which the national park authority was running things. No very formal powers are proposed for the advisory group. Nevertheless, the group is considered to be an important part of the policy jigsaw.

In the consultation process, did any residents of the two areas say that the national parks authority—which, of course, will be a quango—should contain directly elected representatives? Was there a groundswell of opinion in that direction?

It is difficult to say whether there was a groundswell of opinion, but the idea was certainly mentioned. I do not want to pre-empt the decisions that will be made in the light of the responses that are received.

The bill provides for the involvement of communities in a number of ways. One way is through membership of the national park authority, another is through membership of the committees that the authority would be empowered to set up. Only a certain number of members of the authority are allowed to sit on those committees; the other seats would obviously be taken by non-members. The advisory group, which we have talked about, does not have to include members of the authority. The bill also provides for the wide consultation of those who live and work in the park on the park's planning and on Scottish ministers' appointments to the authority.

That sounds like a top-down approach. When the committees are formed, people will be appointed to them by the national park authority.

That is the case, but the efficacy of the committees will depend on the extent to which they reflect the community. If a national park authority appointed an unrepresentative selection of people, the committee's effectiveness could be diminished.

No one will be surprised to hear me say that we will not be drawn at the moment on the question of direct election to national park authorities. I had better not tell you to ask Sarah Boyack that question when she comes before you next week because she might not have made up her mind by then. However, it is within the ministerial domain.

Is it envisaged that the people who are appointed to the national park authority by ministers will be people who represent the area?

The bill is not specific on that, but it says that the necessary qualification for any member to be appointed to a national park authority is knowledge or experience relevant to the functions of the national park authority or the national park. That does not rule out the appointment of someone who has expertise in a relevant area but who happens to be based outside the national park. We do not want to be too narrow in our definitions.

I take it that there is significance in the fact that the bill deals with national parks. It was interesting to hear regional parks being mentioned. Presumably, the intention behind having appointed—but not locally based—people would be to protect the parks' national character and to bring in expertise at a national level. Is that a fair comment?

That is certainly a possibility. As I have mentioned, the bill as drafted allows for a fair degree of flexibility.

Are there any more questions? You may have been warned about this—I think Elaine Murray raised it at a previous meeting: can you tell us what "infeftment" means?

It means someone completing title to heritable property by means of recording their title to land at the registry of sasines or registering their title at the Land Register of Scotland.

We will treat the bill in a new light now.

It is a technical term that we did not feel we could change.

Richard Lochhead has pointed out that section 12 of the draft bill—

"Duty to have regard to National Park Plans"—

states that the Scottish ministers, the national park authority, a local authority and any other public body or office holder are required

"when exercising their functions in relation to a National Park . . . to have regard to the National Park Plan."

What authority does the phrase "have regard" contain?

It is a very well-attested bit of legal drafting that can be found all over the place in statute. It has considerable force: any other public authority would, under the requirement to have regard to national park plans, be accountable for how it behaved in relation to the plans and could not do anything that ran counter to some important element in them. It is a matter for possible debate and consideration by ministers. Whether to go a little further than that may have come up in consultation, but that is the wording at present.

Are there any other questions? Are we all experts on the subject now?

There are no more questions for the moment, so I thank the witnesses for coming to enlighten us on national parks. We will do our best to understand the issues. We are very grateful for your time and assistance.

We will now move on to the last item on the agenda, the—

What about appointing a reporter?

Sorry. Well spotted.

We have moved on to the next agenda item.

No, I think that we will happily retrace our steps.

As we discovered in the joint meeting with the Transport and the Environment Committee, that committee has appointed reporters to deal—jointly with us—with issues surrounding national parks. We agreed to appoint two members of this committee to reciprocate that arrangement. Do members have anyone in mind who would be suitable for that job?

I suggest Elaine Murray.

I suggest Irene McGugan.

Any other suggestions? I think that we can safely say that we have two volunteers, so we ask them to do that job on our behalf. Thank you.

We will now progress to the final item on the agenda.