³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. We will first consider two youth crime petitions. At our 25 June 2025 meeting, before we went into summer recess, the committee heard evidence from the Rt Hon Dorothy Bain KC, the Lord Advocate, as well as officials from the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That evidence session was followed by one with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and officials from the Scottish Government. The meeting covered issues raised during our consideration of two petitions: PE1947, on addressing Scotland’s culture of youth violence, and PE2064, on ensuring that under-16s who are charged with rape are treated as adults within the criminal justice system.

As we recently gathered oral evidence on those petitions together, are members content that we discuss them together?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE2089, lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of Lochaber National Park—NO more group, which 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.

The committee last considered the petition on 22 January 2025, when we wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to highlight the issues that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the petition, including the impact of existing national parks, the consultation process and NatureScot’s role as the reporter. We also wrote to Dumfries and Galloway Council.

The cabinet secretary’s response provides information on the wider impacts of national parks, based on information provided by the two Scottish national park authorities. The submission reiterates the Scottish Government’s position that there are no current plans to conduct an independent review of the two existing national parks in Scotland, which I think is a disappointment to us as committee members. The cabinet secretary states that this is because national parks are accountable to their boards and to the Scottish Government. Delivery is monitored and reviewed at regular meetings between the Scottish Government and national park authority conveners and chief executives. Park authorities are also required to produce annual reports and accounts, which are laid before the Parliament and published.

The response provides details of the public consultation, which was launched in November last year, and highlights the fact that NatureScot has commissioned an independent review of the consultation process—whatever that means. The committee has received a written submission from the No Galloway National Park campaign, which reiterates concern about NatureScot’s role as reporter—indeed—and raises points about the impact of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

Since those submissions were received, the Scottish Government has announced that it has decided not to pursue a proposal to designate Galloway and Ayrshire as a national park. The recommendation that was made by the reporter was to not proceed with the designation but instead strengthen a range of existing arrangements, including a better resourced and more influential Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere reserve; a renewed focus on people and nature, alongside commercial forestry operations in the Galloway forest park; and a new commitment to the implementation of management strategies for the three national scenic areas.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Gosh, I see that we have guests with us, so I shall rearrange the order of our consideration to facilitate colleagues who have turned out.

Thank you, and I hope that we can do a bit more than that. Colleagues, do you have any suggestions for action?

If there are no other comments from colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and to make that further representation to the Scottish Government?

Members indicated agreement.

That would be appreciated.

Thank you, Mr Whittle. I commend Tim Eagle, Rachael Hamilton, Douglas Lumsden and Tess White, who all hoped to be able to address the committee. Tim Eagle has tabled a written submission, as have Russell Findlay, Finlay Carson and Emma Harper. There is a considerable degree of interest from colleagues in the matter. It has been suggested that a debate be held in the chamber on the subject, but I wonder whether members have other suggestions for action.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Wild Wrasse (Protection of Stocks) (PE2110)

Are we all content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we content with that suggestion, in light of the strong direction that has been given by the Government and our inability to take the issues raised in the petition forward?

Members indicated agreement.