Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an interesting thought.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue, but we are unable to take the petition further for the reasons that Mr Torrance stated.

That brings us to the final of the new petitions that we are considering this morning. PE2117, lodged by Bruce Whitehead, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of any chemical labelled “Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects” or carrying the dead fish pictogram, on coastal jetties or slipways.

The key legal framework in Scotland for protecting the water environment is provided by the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, or CAR, regime. The framework covers both direct discharges into the water environment and situations where there is a risk of diffuse pollution from activities on land. Under that regime, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s role is to assess the risk of proposed activities before deciding whether to grant an authorisation. The Scottish Government considers this to be a regulatory matter and points to the Great Britain regulatory framework, which is in place to prevent or minimise harm to people and wildlife from the use of biocides used in amenity settings. Its response to the petition states that it does not believe that the Scottish Government has a role or that there is a reason for Scottish ministers to intervene.

The petitioner explains that he is concerned about the use of chemicals at Hawes pier and believes that the conditions of SEPA’s authorisation have been breached. He says that manual application of the authorised chemical has led to spillages over the pier edge into the river and in unpermitted weather conditions.

Are there any 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.