Chamber and committees

I am happy to back those recommendations, convener. However, could we highlight to the petitioner that the UK Government’s consultation is open just now so that they can take part in it?

Considering the response from the Government, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government hopes to legislate for a ban on peat sales in this parliamentary session and has no current plans to ban the extraction of peat in Scotland.

My final question is about the management and the boards of national parks. We heard evidence that the boards should be a much broader church and should take in a lot of different areas. The boards are currently very limited in terms of the people on them. What would you say to that?

Good morning. The key drivers for more national parks are supporting economic growth, addressing the climate emergency and improving public services and community wellbeing. In the evidence that we took two weeks ago, people who are against the new national park in Galloway said that they did not think that the park would have any economic levers or that there would be benefits to public services. They thought that it would be detrimental to the area. Are there examples of the existing national parks supporting economic growth, addressing the climate emergency and improving public services and wellbeing?

Yes, or just to change the whole planning system or the system for agricultural and forestry grants. The position is the same in every national park. Can we do something different?

In light of the information that we have received, I wonder whether we can close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has accepted the independent review’s recommendations, with work under way to ensure their implementation. If that is not to the petitioner’s satisfaction, the petitioner could lodge a new petition in the next parliamentary session, and I would urge them to do so.

I am looking at the petition’s aims and think that they have mostly been achieved. I wonder, therefore, if we could close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has consulted on draft regulations for burials under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 and published its analysis, and it will consider its findings when developing the draft burial regulations.

With regard to the need for change and an independent review, should national parks have more powers to be able to enforce different things in the areas that they represent?

In evidence to the committee two weeks ago, Nick Kempe said that, under the national parks, administration, the planning system, forestry grants and agricultural grants are “exactly the same”. Is it time that we had an independent review into national parks to see whether there is anything that we could change, either for the proposed new national parks or in the existing ones?

I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, seeking information about its work on recommendation 14 of the temporary accommodation task and finish group report. We could also consider writing to the Scottish Government to request further information about the housing affordability working group recommendations and to ask what actions the Scottish Government intends to take in response.