Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 13 Mar 2008

13 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

National Parks

Gibson, Rob SNP Highlands and Islands Watch on SPTV

It is a pleasure to talk about the next phase in the development of the national parks. I watched the process from the sidelines during the first parliamentary session and I was involved in debates about boundary changes in the second session, so I am glad that we will have a review that takes account of how we trust local people to make decisions. In that respect, I agree totally with RSPB Scotland that the

"parks must focus more attention on delivering against the first objective, including biodiversity protection and enhancement."

That must include the biodiversity of the human population in the parks, too. It is best for decisions to be made by the people who live in the area.

The thinking behind how the park boards were established was that people who live in the area needed to have board members appointed nationally in order for the job to be done. Like John Scott and, I think, the Liberals, I suggest that we have reached the stage at which a national park board can be directly elected locally and can consult the experts who require to back up decisions. In relation to Neil Kay's report, the strategic review could make the case for a directly elected park board with absolutely no appointees. That would be a good democratic way forward that would recognise, as local people do, that local people's future is at stake.

When he read the Kay report, my fellow nationalist David Fallows, who is the councillor for the Badenoch and Strathspey ward, said that he was worried. He said:

"we fought long and hard for a clear and strong element of local democracy within the Park. We accepted that the Park was a National asset—but at the same time emphasised that the Park was our Park—the land where we live and work and where we have staked our hopes for our futures and those of our generations to follow."

That statement expresses the view that people are growing in confidence about taking on the job of running the national parks on the nation's behalf, with the support of bodies such as SNH. I commend that view to ministers.

Other aspects of rationalisation could save money. If a board were smaller, more money would be available to spend up front on the work that the national parks must do. That would be a strong argument in tight financial times.

Quite a bit of debate has been had about the planning functions. I agree with the argument of various groups, including Ramblers Scotland and the RSPB, that planning functions in the Cairngorms should be firmed up. It is possible to see that happening, but agreement is needed about what we expect from planning in the Cairngorms and in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. We want a much firmer approach to sustainable economic development in the housing that is built there. As tourism is the parks' primary source of income and employment, people who provide services to tourism need to be able to live inside the parks rather than have to travel into them for work. That issue is fundamental because of property prices.

I agree with the Cairngorms National Park Authority that it is essential that

"The demand for housing must also be managed to ensure high environmental and sustainability standards."

If the national parks are centres of excellence, the planning functions ought to ensure much higher standards for housing in the parks than apply outside the parks. Such housing should be very eco-friendly.

Should the housing fair that has been set up in the green wedge at Inverness have taken place in the Cairngorms national park? Should we not save that green wedge and set an example for the housing that should be built? Such housing is not necessarily more expensive, but it is of far better quality for the future. That is the way in which the national parks could look after the human population's biodiversity. I hope that the review will consider that.

I join other members in thanking the minister for his comments on the extension of the Cairngorms national park, but national parks are not likely to stay static. New ones will be created, if people wish that to happen and the process is followed. The boundary changes in north Perthshire are welcome, given that that was the overwhelming view taken in the previous Parliament. I am sorry that some of the members who spoke in favour of the boundary change today did not vote for it in the previous Parliament, or we would have had it.

Let us finish on a high note—there were people who saw things correctly. I hope that in future we can point to new areas that can become centres of excellence and enable national parks to do a cutting-edge job that people look up to, not only in terms of what John Muir wanted, but by the standards that we have to meet today for Scotland to set an example to the rest of the world and lead the fight against climate change.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 13 Mar 2008

In the same item of business