Chamber and committees

I will let Mr Torrance take us on to the second of our themes, which, as you might recall, having listened to the previous session, is the drivers for designating more national parks.

Our next continued petition is PE1989, which was lodged by Mary Montague, who I should say is known to me, as the constituency member for Eastwood, because she is the provost of my local authority, East Renfrewshire Council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces.

We last considered the petition in December 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We received a response from the then Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Maree Todd, which stated that defibrillators are purchased

“mainly through fundraising in the community”

or are funded by business and organisations. It also stated that the Scottish Government is

“working alongside the Resuscitation Research Group at the University of Edinburgh to better understand the evidence around placement of defibrillators in Scotland and to develop a tool, which would help defibrillator guardians make informed decisions about where best to place their device in order that it could have most impact.”

That sounds a bit like gobbledegook. Anyhow, the committee had asked whether the Scottish Government would consider making representations to the United Kingdom Government to update the legislation on health and safety at work to include defibrillator provision as part of the minimum first aid requirements. The minister’s response stated that

“As the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1947 is a reserved policy area it would be the responsibility of the UK Government to consider the evidence”

and that the Scottish Government’s priority is its collective partnership approach.

In considering the petition, members will have in mind that we recently asked the minister whether the Government would provide direct funding for primary and secondary schools to purchase and install defibrillators, under PE2101. The minister’s response reiterated that it was for local authorities to make decisions on purchasing, installing and maintaining defibrillators for schools. I think that the committee has been quite charged on the aims behind the campaign for defibrillators but a bit underwhelmed by the response.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action??

It might be that these things get teased out as we go along, in any event.

What impact do you consider that our existing national parks have had on the economies and communities within their boundaries? Are the national parks achieving the statutory aim of promoting the sustainable and economic development of those communities? If there is a concern that the national parks are not meeting that statutory obligation, what lessons need to be learned or considered before anything further comes to us?

Would the gentleman online like to comment in response to any of the questions?

I thank you all very much and I am grateful to you for your contributions this morning. We have teased out your views on a range of issues arising from the proposed national park, and that evidence will be of great interest and help to the committee as we consider what steps to take next. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the panel to change over.

The fourth and final theme that we wish to explore with you this morning relates to the forthcoming legislation on the national parks, and the potential national park statement, including the implications of pursuing reform and designation on a twin track. I invite Mr Choudhury to ask some questions on that.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continuing petitions, the first of which is PE2089, which was lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of the 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 of 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 conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of said independent review.

I am delighted that we are joined this morning by two panels. On the first panel we have Denise Brownlee from the No Galloway National Park campaign group, Mhairi Dawson from NFU Scotland, Nick Kempe from Parkswatch Scotland, who is joining us online, and Ian McKinnon from the Lochaber National Park—NO More campaign.

I extend a very warm welcome to all of you. I do not know whether you have presented to a committee of the Scottish Parliament before, but we will try to make it as enjoyable, discursive and revealing an exercise for you as possible. We are obviously very keen to hear what you have to say in order that it can fully inform our consideration of the aims of the petition.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 12 June. At that time, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Since that meeting, the Scottish Government has responded, stating that there are no current plans for the Scottish Government to conduct an independent review of the two existing national parks in Scotland, as national parks are accountable to their boards and to the Scottish Government. It has also outlined in its national park proposal that there will be opportunities for local consultation during the next phase in the process, as NatureScot carries out its duties as the reporter.

We have quite a lot of stuff that we would like to explore with you, so if witnesses are content, we will move straight to questions. I do not know how we will decide how someone will indicate that they will take the lead on a question. Perhaps you can give me a nod to say that you would like to speak. Mr Kempe can wave a hand or something; I can see you, so we will know that you are interested in answering particular questions.

Let me start off. Looking at the various aims of the petition—that is what we come back to—what evidence do you feel is currently available on the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of our existing national parks? Do you feel that the evidence that is available is enough to adequately assess what the impact has been? Is the evidence on the impact sufficient to inform future decisions, including future designations? I imagine that the fact that we do not know enough, which is why an inquiry needs to be held, is at the heart of the consideration of the petition.

Mr McKinnon, are you happy to respond?

Mickey Mouse might facilitate all that with a smile, but he fleeces you while he is doing it.

Thank you. I will move to the next theme, which is the engagement process and local buy-in, which follows on nicely from your comments.

Thank you. Mr Choudhury has suggested something that I think will find an echo among colleagues: that we invite Police Scotland to come to the committee and give evidence on the matter at a future meeting. Are colleagues content that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.