���˿���

I agree with all of that. Having read the submission from Siobhian Brown, the community safety minister, I think that although it is one of the longest submissions that I have seen—it is more than seven or eight pages—and although, to be fair to the minister, it covers a lot of ground, it is still very general.

I remember from those distant days when I was community safety minister that specific bodies sought to play a variety of specific roles. We had Medics Against Violence; there was the use of naloxone; there were various diversionary schemes; and there was the cashback for communities funding. Although that funding is mentioned in the last paragraph of the minister’s submission, there is no specific statement about how much money is involved. The idea is to confiscate drug dealers’ takings and use that money to help to solve the problems that they have partly created in society.

I should also mention the violence reduction unit: John Carnochan and his successor played very active parts in helping to turn around the lives of youngsters who were on the verge or cusp of criminal careers.

This is a very difficult area, convener, and I know that there are no simple solutions. Like you, I have sympathy with the petitioner’s comment in his supplementary submission that for the victim, in particular, and the accused, the experience of going through the criminal justice system, where you might give a precognition, wait a year and still nothing happens, is in some ways almost as bad as the original problem, if it was a relatively minor one.

I think that we should hear from the minister, but we should also ask for more specific information on each of the policy strands that are designed to help young people who are on the cusp of becoming a serious problem to themselves and society, and how effective those strands are. After all, at the end of the day, it comes down to these programmes.

I was struck by how very general the response from the minister was. I could not go and explain it to a constituent—some of the abbreviations and acronyms passed me by, so goodness knows how the public are expected to understand any of it. There is a risk of descending into jargon.

I suspect not—actually, definitely not.

I suggest, just for the sake of balance, that we ask the key operators in the relevant areas for their views, because we on this committee have a duty to listen to all sides of the argument. I would be interested to know what the operators’ view is, particularly with regard to the costs of franchising. I recall how, 20 years ago, when this issue was raised with the Local Government and Transport Committee, of which I was a member, we found cost to be a significant factor in the equation, because the costs of running a process are costs that could, some might argue, be better deployed in delivering a better transport system.

Mr Golden asked about how support in Galloway would be gauged. Indeed, I asked Francesca Osowska and Peter Rawcliffe that in a conference call that I had with them a few weeks back. Perhaps that is for later on, because NatureScot is going to meetings in Galloway and people are asking what the boundaries would be, what the national park authority’s powers would be, who would be on the board and what the authority would do but there are no answers to any of those questions. It is a bit of a pig in a poke at the moment.

If the idea of a new national park is taken forward, surely the only real way to measure opinion would be to ask the people who are resident within its proposed boundaries in a local referendum. I thought that our party was in favour of referenda.

The aims are very worthy and we all have great sympathy with them, because of the profound mental health problems that exist among young people in Scotland. It is a very serious point indeed.

In the light of the responses from Police Scotland and NatureScot that you have described—I will not repeat what you have said—there does not really seem to be any basis on which we can proceed further. Therefore, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.

I am glad to hear that you watch daytime television.

Absolutely. Preferably not the general, vague answers that we are familiar with, but specific answers to the points that the petitioners have made. After all, that is our job. If we do not get specific answers, they can be sure that the committee will do its job.

In his evidence, Ian McKinnon—I should say that I have known him for 20 years—said:

“If we cannot provide the basics of litter collection, toilets and parking—and we are not doing that in our existing national parks—we should not be considering creating another one in the future.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 30 October 2024; c 12.]

Is he not right?

I sympathise with Foysol Choudhury’s point, but I am not sure that prolonging the life of the petition will—

As a resident and representative of a large part of the Cairngorms national park, I beg to differ about that, and tend to agree with the 92 per cent of my constituents who said that the park is not performing well. I say that with some sadness, because it is not what one would wish.

However, to go back—and this is the last area that I want to address, convener—the beef of the petition is in point two, in which the petitioners call on the Scottish Government to

“Instruct an independent review on the operation of the current National Parks, including assessment of the economic impacts on businesses & industries within the two parks including, but not exclusive to, farming, forestry, crofting and angling.”

The parks have been in existence for 21 years. There has been no independent analysis of their performance. Yes, there are reports, and there are board members. However—and the petitioners make this point—board members are not allowed to express public criticism of the national park. One wonders what the point of board members is if they are gagged in that way—and I know that they are, because I know many of them and have watched that in operation, sadly.

The central point is, why are we creating another body, when there has been no proper, thorough and entirely independent analysis of how the two existing bodies have functioned over 21 years? When I say “independent analysis”, I do not mean, as Peter Rawcliffe suggested in his evidence to the committee, that some university should be appointed to carry out an independent review of the work that NatureScot does. I wonder which university will be picked for that and whether it will be one that will produce answers that are congenial to NatureScot, which, plainly, wants another national park and is not impartial in any way.

Surely the case for independent analysis is unassailable. With respect, the answers that have been given so far by you and NatureScot have been completely inadequate. The so-called benefits that you alluded to—the economic benefits—have been created by businesses and people in the national parks, not by the national parks themselves. As you said, a national park has very limited powers; therefore, the idea that hundreds of millions of pounds have accrued from the oeuvre, the efforts, the labour, and the input of the national park is for the birds.

The Scottish National Party did not include the new national park in its manifesto. It is a Bute House agreement legacy promise, and the Bute house agreement has been torn up. Why is the Scottish Government going ahead with this when there are so many so many more important things to do? If you are intent on going ahead with it, surely there must be a properly independent analysis—which is the central ask of the petitioners.