I will speak specifically to amendment 76, in the name of Ross Greer, on planning in national parks. I completely agree with the amendment and commend it to members in the chamber.

Members will be aware of the significant planning application for Flamingo Land in Balloch, which is the gateway to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Ross Greer started a petition—I commend him for doing so—that attracted thousands of signatures opposing the application. I did a local door-to-door survey of some 6,000 households and more than 60 per cent opposed the development, but all, whether they agreed or disagreed, wanted to see improvements to roads and the quality of jobs and the economic impact being maximised.

In considering the application from Flamingo Land, the national park paid due regard to planning policy, to the views of statutory consultees such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and to the concerns of the local community. In contrast to what we are seeing now, the national park board held public hearings and made a site visit; it considered expert planning advice from its own staff, many of whom live in the national park; and it decided unanimously to reject Flamingo Land.

Given that background, it is astonishing that a single reporter decided that we should support the proposal. Ministers, under pressure in advance of a vote in the Parliament, called it in, and I welcome that. However, the application went back in front of the same reporter, and my understanding is that the report is now with the Minister for Public Finance. At no stage, from when the reporter first considered the appeal to now, has a public hearing been held—not one. Yet there are lots of public hearings about all manner of planning appeals on proposals of far less strategic significance. To be frank, I find that appalling and a denial of democracy.

It is important that community concerns are heard and considered. We created national parks to protect and conserve some of our most beautiful scenery and environment. It is right, therefore, that when significant application decisions are appealed, there is a public hearing as part of the determination process.

I urge members to support amendment 76.