Chamber
Plenary, 21 Mar 2007
21 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill: Stage 1
I am pointing out to the minister the extent to which representations are being made, given that two of the constituency members who have spoken in the debate who represent parts of the existing park have not received any representations that John Swinney's bill should not progress.
I turn to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and the previous Rural Development Committee, on which I sat. The stage 1 report on John Swinney's bill by the current Environment and Rural Development Committee refers to the previous committee's report. Paragraph 10 states that "That Committee"—the previous Rural Development Committee—
"reported to Ministers that, ‘There appeared to the Committee to be almost unanimous dissatisfaction with the proposed boundary, along with a degree of bewilderment due to the fact that the Executive had not provided clear and transparent reasons for its departure from the recommendations of SNH'".
That was then, and the situation is exactly the same now. Paragraph 45 states that the existing committee found that
"The National Trust for Scotland stated that ‘The consultation carried out by SNH in 2001 was exemplary'. SNH stated that the reasons that it put forward to include this area in the Park during the consultation process for the draft designation order remain valid."
Very little has changed over the years. Opinion is almost unanimous that the highland Perthshire area referred to in John Swinney's bill should be included within the boundary. The stage 1 report states:
"Evidence to the Committee indicated that the local communities and business organisations in the eastern and highland Perthshire area generally support the Bill. The Association of Cairngorms Community Councils stated, ‘Moving the boundary in that way would, as far as the communities are concerned, be the natural completion of the park. It has been noted that there is currently a gap in the connections between communities.'"
The committee found itself in the strange position, when we went to Blair Atholl and took evidence from the local community, that witness after witness representing all the local sectors gave us virtually the same evidence, which was that they supported highland Perthshire being included within the boundaries of the national park. Almost all the evidence that the committee received during our inquiry gave us the same message, yet the majority of the committee—the Labour and Lib Dem members—voted against including highland Perthshire within the boundaries.
John Swinney referred to the conclusions of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report, which lays out all the reasons why his proposal should be supported. The report refers to the powerful case put forward by John Swinney and his constituents and the many reasons why the area should be included within the boundaries, yet the committee voted five to four in favour of rejecting the bill.
I turn briefly to some of the spurious arguments that were put forward against John Swinney's bill. We heard arguments from Labour members of the committee that we have to draw the boundary somewhere, so why should we accept an extension? However, we have heard time and again that the topography and natural character on both sides of the existing boundary are almost the same. We could easily extend the boundary to include the area that is currently outside the boundary, because the areas are very similar.
We also heard the argument from Labour members that the bill would just encourage other MSPs to introduce bills to extend the boundaries even further. Can members believe that? That is part of the democratic process. It is the right of any MSP in the chamber to introduce a member's bill to extend the park's boundaries, if they so wish. Parliament, through the democratic process and consultation, can make a decision. That is called democracy. For some reason, the Labour members of the committee do not like democracy. They do not think that people should have a say or that MSPs should make representations on behalf of their constituents.
There was also the spurious argument that our accepting the demand from this community might generate demand elsewhere. At the moment, there is no evidence of strong demand for any other community to be included in the park. Two members who represent parts of the current national park have indicated that they are not aware of strong demands in their constituencies for the park to be extended further into those areas. If there is such demand in the future, so be it—that is part of the democratic process.
Another spurious argument was that we would have to change the composition of the national park authority. So what? That could easily have been sorted out at stage 2, where any necessary tweaks or slight changes to the bill could have been made. That happens to any bill that goes through the Parliament. What was wrong with tweaking the bill at stage 2?
After eight years in the Parliament and having gone through this process in the first session, I found it an incredible experience to go through it again. The same scenarios were outlined to us, and there was virtually unanimous support for one side of the argument, but the Environment and Rural Development Committee, of which I am a member, split five to four, with the coalition parties sticking together. I wish that Nora Radcliffe were here today. I am sure that she has a valid reason for not being here, but I would have loved to have heard her reasons for speaking throughout the process in favour of the bill and of including highland Perthshire within the boundaries of the park, but, when it came to a division in committee, voting with the Labour Party not to support the bill's general principles. That is fascinating. It is a pity that she is not here to explain herself, but I am sure that in due course she will be asked to do so to the people concerned.
Today we have an opportunity to right a wrong. I urge the Parliament to do a great service to democracy, to John Swinney, to the consultation process that took place and to John Swinney's constituents, who almost unanimously supported the inclusion of their area within the national park. Let us do the right thing and support the general principles of the bill.
I turn to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and the previous Rural Development Committee, on which I sat. The stage 1 report on John Swinney's bill by the current Environment and Rural Development Committee refers to the previous committee's report. Paragraph 10 states that "That Committee"—the previous Rural Development Committee—
"reported to Ministers that, ‘There appeared to the Committee to be almost unanimous dissatisfaction with the proposed boundary, along with a degree of bewilderment due to the fact that the Executive had not provided clear and transparent reasons for its departure from the recommendations of SNH'".
That was then, and the situation is exactly the same now. Paragraph 45 states that the existing committee found that
"The National Trust for Scotland stated that ‘The consultation carried out by SNH in 2001 was exemplary'. SNH stated that the reasons that it put forward to include this area in the Park during the consultation process for the draft designation order remain valid."
Very little has changed over the years. Opinion is almost unanimous that the highland Perthshire area referred to in John Swinney's bill should be included within the boundary. The stage 1 report states:
"Evidence to the Committee indicated that the local communities and business organisations in the eastern and highland Perthshire area generally support the Bill. The Association of Cairngorms Community Councils stated, ‘Moving the boundary in that way would, as far as the communities are concerned, be the natural completion of the park. It has been noted that there is currently a gap in the connections between communities.'"
The committee found itself in the strange position, when we went to Blair Atholl and took evidence from the local community, that witness after witness representing all the local sectors gave us virtually the same evidence, which was that they supported highland Perthshire being included within the boundaries of the national park. Almost all the evidence that the committee received during our inquiry gave us the same message, yet the majority of the committee—the Labour and Lib Dem members—voted against including highland Perthshire within the boundaries.
John Swinney referred to the conclusions of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report, which lays out all the reasons why his proposal should be supported. The report refers to the powerful case put forward by John Swinney and his constituents and the many reasons why the area should be included within the boundaries, yet the committee voted five to four in favour of rejecting the bill.
I turn briefly to some of the spurious arguments that were put forward against John Swinney's bill. We heard arguments from Labour members of the committee that we have to draw the boundary somewhere, so why should we accept an extension? However, we have heard time and again that the topography and natural character on both sides of the existing boundary are almost the same. We could easily extend the boundary to include the area that is currently outside the boundary, because the areas are very similar.
We also heard the argument from Labour members that the bill would just encourage other MSPs to introduce bills to extend the boundaries even further. Can members believe that? That is part of the democratic process. It is the right of any MSP in the chamber to introduce a member's bill to extend the park's boundaries, if they so wish. Parliament, through the democratic process and consultation, can make a decision. That is called democracy. For some reason, the Labour members of the committee do not like democracy. They do not think that people should have a say or that MSPs should make representations on behalf of their constituents.
There was also the spurious argument that our accepting the demand from this community might generate demand elsewhere. At the moment, there is no evidence of strong demand for any other community to be included in the park. Two members who represent parts of the current national park have indicated that they are not aware of strong demands in their constituencies for the park to be extended further into those areas. If there is such demand in the future, so be it—that is part of the democratic process.
Another spurious argument was that we would have to change the composition of the national park authority. So what? That could easily have been sorted out at stage 2, where any necessary tweaks or slight changes to the bill could have been made. That happens to any bill that goes through the Parliament. What was wrong with tweaking the bill at stage 2?
After eight years in the Parliament and having gone through this process in the first session, I found it an incredible experience to go through it again. The same scenarios were outlined to us, and there was virtually unanimous support for one side of the argument, but the Environment and Rural Development Committee, of which I am a member, split five to four, with the coalition parties sticking together. I wish that Nora Radcliffe were here today. I am sure that she has a valid reason for not being here, but I would have loved to have heard her reasons for speaking throughout the process in favour of the bill and of including highland Perthshire within the boundaries of the park, but, when it came to a division in committee, voting with the Labour Party not to support the bill's general principles. That is fascinating. It is a pity that she is not here to explain herself, but I am sure that in due course she will be asked to do so to the people concerned.
Today we have an opportunity to right a wrong. I urge the Parliament to do a great service to democracy, to John Swinney, to the consultation process that took place and to John Swinney's constituents, who almost unanimously supported the inclusion of their area within the national park. Let us do the right thing and support the general principles of the bill.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5758, in the name of John Swinney, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Cairngorms...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the Environment and Rural Development Committee for the consideration that it has given the bill and for hosting an evidence session in my constituen...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
I am one of the members to whom John Swinney referred. I felt that the boundaries should not have excluded highland Perthshire and that to do so was wrong. I...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I understand the dilemma that faces members when they deal with designation orders that are not well defined or well argued for, as with the order for the Ca...
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con):
Con
As the convener of the Rural Development Committee in those days, I put it on record that although the committee was in a huge dilemma, as Mike Rumbles said,...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I am grateful to Mr Fergusson for that remark and for the way in which he has pursued the issue assiduously and supported efforts to remedy the situation ove...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
Would Mr Swinney, as the SNP's finance spokesman, like to reflect on the value for money of the committee's decision? Parliament has spent a lot of time and ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Mr Fraser makes a reasonable point. Not only will the consultation have to be done again, but if we agree to extend the boundaries, that might involve reloca...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I thank the committee's clerks for their invaluable support and I thank all those who supplied written and oral evidence. In particular, I thank the people o...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
Since giving evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, I have had exchanges with the committee and with John Swinney on the detail of his ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Will the minister give way?
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No. I am in my first minute, so I ask John Swinney to let me get going.In my evidence to the committee, I was absolutely clear about three things. First, I w...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
The minister has talked about affordable housing and the need to guarantee environmental protection for all the areas in the Cairngorms national park, which ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I am happy to address that full on. This morning, I met the chair of the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce—which, incidentally, did not exist when we started di...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
As the minister will be aware, I represent West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, which is on the other side of the boundary from the area that John Swinney repr...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Let me be absolutely clear: as part of its considerations, evidence was presented to the Environment and Rural Development Committee specifically on business...
Richard Lochhead (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
I begin by congratulating John Swinney, the local constituency member, for doggedly pursuing the campaign since 2003. I also pay tribute to his campaigning c...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
As a point of accuracy, the serious concerns that are being raised are about changing the boundaries at this time. That is the key issue about which there ar...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I am pointing out to the minister the extent to which representations are being made, given that two of the constituency members who have spoken in the debat...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
John Swinney's member's bill is about righting a wrong. In that, it is fairly unusual. In my experience, much of the legislation that is passed by the Parlia...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
Does Ted Brocklebank understand that someone who arrived from planet Mars might wonder whether he is debating the merits of Nora Radcliffe or of the bill?
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
I am not sure what that intervention meant, but it might have made more sense if Nora Radcliffe or the other members whom I have mentioned were here to respo...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Excuse me. The Lib Dems are not hell-bent on kicking out John Swinney's bill. I shall certainly support it at decision time.
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
I thank Mr Rumbles for keeping me right, but I am still not sure that the minister has given an adequate answer as to why the Executive as a whole appears to...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
I am an assiduous watcher of "Yes, Minister" DVDs. Unfortunately, today I am in the position of the Sir Humphrey brigade, who often say, "Yes, of course I su...
Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green):
Green
I, too, remember the excellent work of the Rural Development Committee in the first session of the Scottish Parliament. At the time, I was not a member of th...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
A substantial part of the Cairngorms national park lies in my constituency and in that of Mike Rumbles. From the south at Dalwhinnie to the north at Cromdale...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
It would be helpful if I clarified two points. First, the challenge is not the number of people in settlements—although I was concerned about their being exc...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I do not accept that that work would in any way be disrupted. Why should it? It would simply be supplemented in respect of an area with very few people and o...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I start by declaring an interest, as I did during the committee's consideration of the bill. I am a former member of the Cairngorms working party and was br...