Chamber
Plenary, 13 Mar 2008
13 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
National Parks
We probably agree that it is time to review where we are with the national parks. However, I will start with a quotation from some wonderful spin that I found on the web:
"For the visitor interested in wildlife, Braemar has long held great attractions. There must be few villages where one can take an early morning walk along the village main street and have a good chance of meeting, one after the other, a magnificent 13 pointer stag, a shy Roe Deer, Red Squirrels stealing nuts put out for the birds, a cock pheasant strutting in all his finery, and a big brown hare timidly exploring the possibility of access to some of the gardens, while overhead Golden Eagles and buzzards sail silent, missing nothing."
The interesting thing about the quotation is not its excess, which is obvious to us all, but that it mentions the wildlife that we seek to preserve in our countryside. The chances of meeting them on an early morning walk in Braemar might be pretty low, but they are there and they are one of the good reasons for preserving our parks.
If members have any doubts at all about the landscape that we are trying to preserve, I simply point them to the "Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007", to which I will refer later. It contains all sorts of wonderful small pictures that remind one of places that one has been to and how magnificent they are.
The issue that we are discussing is whether the structures for the governance and management of the parks should be reviewed. I remind members that if we go to the professionals, we will find that a management consultant is someone who borrows our watch to tell us the time and then walks off with it. During the review process, we need to be extremely careful about keeping our eyes on what we are doing.
I turn to the "Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007" and some of the action points that it contains, in an effort to find out whether we can derive some ideas about the review. There are, I think, eight priorities for action in the plan. They are about
"Conserving and Enhancing Biodiversity … Integrating Public Support for Land Management … Supporting Sustainable Deer Management … Providing High Quality Opportunities for Outdoor Access … Making Tourism and Business More Sustainable … Making Housing More Affordable and Sustainable … Raising Awareness and Understanding of the Park".
One would have thought that that was a pretty wide canvas to start with.
If we look at the strategic objectives, we find phrases such as
"Conserve and enhance … Engage all sectors … Promote access to appropriate policy and funding mechanisms … Develop awareness … Prevent degradation and erosion of soils … Develop a sound knowledge and understanding of the cultural traditions"—
I might question that particular objective—
"Help communities, businesses and households … Promote sustainable flood management … Adopt a catchment-scale approach to water … Develop … Encourage … Maintain … Promote".
It seems to me that the activities that the plan covers, which I am sure are highly laudable and which I am not trying to denigrate, are extremely wide ranging.
That point is emphasised when one turns to the priorities for action—it is good that the plan contains priorities for action. Some of the acronyms that are listed on page 102 are
"ADMG, CNPA … DCS … NGOs … SGA … LECs".
The acronyms "ACCC" and "RA" are two of the many others mentioned on page 107. In fact, there are 25 other acronyms, which account for considerably more organisations.
I say all that not to be disparaging about anyone, but merely to emphasise to members that the parks have an extraordinarily complicated function. If we acknowledge that, we will recognise that the simple solution of taking two bodies and merging them with another one is perhaps a little too simple.
I encourage the ministers to put all the organisations' connections on one piece of paper—perhaps we should borrow Jim Mather for that—to determine whether we can identify the real lines of communication and the real points of action that underlie the overall structure. That is a slightly bigger exercise than is currently being talked about.
If we do that, I suggest that there is a pretty good chance that we will come up with a good answer, whereas if we do not do that, I fear that there is a real chance that we will come up with a rather theoretical answer. That would be a pity, because we are hearing that the current system is working pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is a pretty good rule in most walks of life, so I encourage us to have a review that is consistent with what is actually going on. That is my point.
"For the visitor interested in wildlife, Braemar has long held great attractions. There must be few villages where one can take an early morning walk along the village main street and have a good chance of meeting, one after the other, a magnificent 13 pointer stag, a shy Roe Deer, Red Squirrels stealing nuts put out for the birds, a cock pheasant strutting in all his finery, and a big brown hare timidly exploring the possibility of access to some of the gardens, while overhead Golden Eagles and buzzards sail silent, missing nothing."
The interesting thing about the quotation is not its excess, which is obvious to us all, but that it mentions the wildlife that we seek to preserve in our countryside. The chances of meeting them on an early morning walk in Braemar might be pretty low, but they are there and they are one of the good reasons for preserving our parks.
If members have any doubts at all about the landscape that we are trying to preserve, I simply point them to the "Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007", to which I will refer later. It contains all sorts of wonderful small pictures that remind one of places that one has been to and how magnificent they are.
The issue that we are discussing is whether the structures for the governance and management of the parks should be reviewed. I remind members that if we go to the professionals, we will find that a management consultant is someone who borrows our watch to tell us the time and then walks off with it. During the review process, we need to be extremely careful about keeping our eyes on what we are doing.
I turn to the "Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007" and some of the action points that it contains, in an effort to find out whether we can derive some ideas about the review. There are, I think, eight priorities for action in the plan. They are about
"Conserving and Enhancing Biodiversity … Integrating Public Support for Land Management … Supporting Sustainable Deer Management … Providing High Quality Opportunities for Outdoor Access … Making Tourism and Business More Sustainable … Making Housing More Affordable and Sustainable … Raising Awareness and Understanding of the Park".
One would have thought that that was a pretty wide canvas to start with.
If we look at the strategic objectives, we find phrases such as
"Conserve and enhance … Engage all sectors … Promote access to appropriate policy and funding mechanisms … Develop awareness … Prevent degradation and erosion of soils … Develop a sound knowledge and understanding of the cultural traditions"—
I might question that particular objective—
"Help communities, businesses and households … Promote sustainable flood management … Adopt a catchment-scale approach to water … Develop … Encourage … Maintain … Promote".
It seems to me that the activities that the plan covers, which I am sure are highly laudable and which I am not trying to denigrate, are extremely wide ranging.
That point is emphasised when one turns to the priorities for action—it is good that the plan contains priorities for action. Some of the acronyms that are listed on page 102 are
"ADMG, CNPA … DCS … NGOs … SGA … LECs".
The acronyms "ACCC" and "RA" are two of the many others mentioned on page 107. In fact, there are 25 other acronyms, which account for considerably more organisations.
I say all that not to be disparaging about anyone, but merely to emphasise to members that the parks have an extraordinarily complicated function. If we acknowledge that, we will recognise that the simple solution of taking two bodies and merging them with another one is perhaps a little too simple.
I encourage the ministers to put all the organisations' connections on one piece of paper—perhaps we should borrow Jim Mather for that—to determine whether we can identify the real lines of communication and the real points of action that underlie the overall structure. That is a slightly bigger exercise than is currently being talked about.
If we do that, I suggest that there is a pretty good chance that we will come up with a good answer, whereas if we do not do that, I fear that there is a real chance that we will come up with a rather theoretical answer. That would be a pity, because we are hearing that the current system is working pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is a pretty good rule in most walks of life, so I encourage us to have a review that is consistent with what is actually going on. That is my point.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1548, in the name of Michael Russell, on national parks.
The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):
SNP
Today's debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government's thinking on the future of our national parks. At the outset, I want to say with en...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Did the minister say that he accepted that the two parks should remain separate, or that this is part of a review to put them together? Will he make that clear?
Michael Russell:
SNP
I am unlikely to merge the parks physically—that would require more than I am capable of.
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
Surely not.
Michael Russell:
SNP
Jackie Baillie seems to believe that I could achieve even that, but I think that that is unlikely. On the separation of the parks, given that I have spoken o...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
The minister's announcement on the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park is most welcome, but I seek clarity on one issue. On what date is it pro...
Michael Russell:
SNP
All members will accept that the process in the legislation for making changes is slightly cumbersome. If SNH appoints a reporter now, I hope that the proces...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
Zhou Enlai was the premier of the People's Republic of China until 1976. As members may know, he was famous for his skill as a diplomat, as a participant at ...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Does the member agree with me—and, indeed, with the minister—that one of the great success stories of the national parks is the directly elected element of l...
David Stewart:
Lab
I strongly agree with that; in fact, I will reach that issue later in my speech.That progress has included the provision of eco-tourism at Loch Lomond and co...
Michael Russell:
SNP
I am sure that the member is aware that I do not write The Scotsman. I am the person who commissioned the report. The member is right to draw attention to th...
David Stewart:
Lab
I thank the minister for his comments. His earlier announcements perhaps preoccupied some members in the chamber. The minister should by all means look at th...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
I declare an interest as a farmer, although I farm outwith the national park boundaries—as they stand at the moment. I welcome the debate and the minister's ...
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
The important point is surely not the size of the board, but how effective it is and what it delivers. Does the member agree that some of the conclusions tha...
John Scott:
Con
I cannot say whether they are inaccurate, but I respect Professor Kay's report. It has been acknowledged, and I would be the first to acknowledge, that in se...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Will the member give way?
John Scott:
Con
I want to press on.Tribute should be paid to those who have carried out and seen through that developmental phase. However, the purpose of the review, which ...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD):
LD
Scotland's two national parks provide valuable and, more important, unique assets. The previous Executive, and Sarah Boyack in particular, led the way on the...
Michael Russell:
SNP
I am pleased that Jim Hume is quoting Professor Kay, and I will set his mind at rest on the issue of two parks. I may not agree with Professor Kay on everyth...
Jim Hume:
LD
I was actually talking about park authorities. If their roles are reviewed, the autonomy of the two national park authorities should be recognised—that is th...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
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 parliamenta...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I was proud to be involved in the original scrutiny of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and the subsequent setting up of national parks in Loch Lomond and ...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
The two national parks play a significant part in my region. They are both young, although they are growing up, and at present they need encouragement rather...
Michael Russell:
SNP
Before the member becomes totally carried away, I will make clear something that I clarified on Saturday when I was consulted about The Scotsman story. The r...
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
Excellent; keep saying it.
Michael Russell:
SNP
I would be happy to keep saying it to Jackie Baillie forever.
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
I am delighted to hear the minister reiterate that.Ministers will conduct a formal review of the Scottish national parks later in the year and Professor Kay'...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
We probably agree that it is time to review where we are with the national parks. However, I will start with a quotation from some wonderful spin that I foun...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD):
LD
I am fortunate enough to have part of the Cairngorms national park in my region. As well as being a world-class area of outstanding natural environment, the ...