Hansard

Today's debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government's thinking on the way ahead for national parks.

To start with, I remind all members of how important our national parks are to Scotland, especially in the year of homecoming. Each of our national parks has four aims: conservation, recreation, the sustainable use of resources—of course—and the economic and social development of communities. The fourth aim is unique to Scotland.

I know that there is interest in and enthusiasm for national parks across the chamber, and I think that the conveners of both national park authorities are in the public gallery with their chief executives. I extend a warm welcome to them all.

I will address three issues: the national parks review, the contribution that the national parks make to sustainable social and economic development, and the national parks' role in delivering a greener Scotland.

This summer, I signed off the strategic review of the national parks. I want to remind members why that review was conducted, what it recommended, how we consulted on the recommendations and when we will implement them.

Why was there a strategic review? In 2008, Michael Russell, who has just joined us, announced the review in the context of the Government's commitment to more effective government. That translated into a couple of key questions: what is the most appropriate public body for delivering national park functions in Scotland, and what are the most appropriate employer and governance arrangements?

The review was conducted in the summer of 2008. More than 280 individuals and organisations provided their views. The report was published in November 2008 at the same time as a public consultation was launched on some of the key recommendations. Those recommendations were that the two NPAs should continue as free-standing and separate non-departmental public bodies for the medium term; that a ministerially chaired national parks strategy group should be set up; that the national park authorities should work together; that the boards of the NPAs might be reduced in size; and that the conveners and deputy conveners, rather than being elected, might be appointed from among board members.

The consultation on those recommendations produced interesting results. I will explain how we have taken account of the responses in moving forward to implementation and deal with each of the five main consultation issues in turn.

First, I confirm that both park authorities will remain as free-standing NDPBs. The majority of respondents supported the national park authorities. A typical comment was:

"The current arrangements allow Park Authorities to deliver national policy outcomes through the development of local priorities for action which is a key strength of the present structure."

Secondly, the proposal that there might be a national park strategy group attracted strong support, but very few respondents commented on its proposed remit. Instead, respondents preferred to make their own suggestions and provided unprompted views on the composition of any such group. I have to think about the broader agenda for simplifying the public sector, which means that any strategy group will need to exist for a fixed term and that it will have to have a definite end point and a clear sense of what it is being asked to achieve. I hope that that neatly deals with the Conservative amendment.

I therefore intend to chair a small strategy group that will complete its work within 18 months. I will look for the group to provide strategic guidance that complements the national parks founding legislation, which sets out the criteria and detailed formal processes that must be used when setting up or extending a national park. The group should focus on establishing the principles that the Government might be expected to follow in considering both new national parks and boundary changes to existing national parks, and thereby help ministers to decide whether and when to activate the formal statutory process. I anticipate that there will be public consultation on those principles.

Thirdly, there was strong support for the NPAs to work together. Some respondents commented that practices should be shared only when doing so would prove beneficial to both parks. I am pleased that good progress is already being made in that regard. In the summer, both park authorities approved a set of principles to underlie their joint working, particularly when that can be of mutual benefit to both parks.

Fourthly, the review's recommendation that the 25-member boards of the NPAs might be slimmed down polarised views in the consultation. More agreed than disagreed with the proposal, but there was a clear steer from the consultees about the importance of the boards having three types of member: ministerial appointees, council nominees and directly elected members. Views were sought on the relative proportions of those three categories of member, but there was no consensus.

I have therefore decided that the boards should be reduced to fewer than 20 members while retaining a balance between the three categories of member and maintaining the absolute number of directly elected members. That, in turn, means that the proportion of directly elected members will increase. I hope that that makes the Liberal Democrats happy.

It is my intention to bring about, by October 2010, a board of 19 for the Cairngorms National Park Authority and a board of 17 for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. The reason for the difference in size is simple. The extension of the Cairngorms national park into Perth and Kinross, which is already supported in the Scottish Parliament, means that the number of nominating councils will increase from four to five. I referred earlier to the formal processes that are required by the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 when changes are made. Those will now come into play as we bring about smaller boards. We have started a statutory consultation on modifying the designation orders that set up the parks.

Finally, there is the issue of national park authority conveners. Currently, the founding legislation requires that conveners and their deputies be elected from among board members. The review recommended that conveners be appointed by ministers from existing board members, but a majority of consultees disagreed. They felt that the present system is democratic and that changing it could have an adverse effect on the sense of local accountability. I have listened to the consultees and therefore decided that conveners of the national park authorities will continue to be elected by board members.

I turn briefly to the fourth aim of our national parks, which is to promote the sustainable and social development of the areas' communities, which sends a clear message that our national parks are about people as well as wildlife and landscapes. There are many well-documented examples of businesses seeing a unique selling point in their being based in a national park, including tourism-based businesses, farmers' markets and transport initiatives. The key point is that the marketing basis for all those businesses is the national park—the park is the brand. In addition, there are businesses that locate within the national parks for quality-of-life reasons. In common with many rural areas, the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs have high levels of self-employment, with almost a quarter of the working population being self-employed.

Large numbers of visitors are also attracted to the parks: the Cairngorms national park was awarded the 2005 European charter for sustainable tourism—a first for a United Kingdom national park—and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs was awarded it in 2008. I am aware, however, that there is a small minority of visitors whose behaviour is antisocial and can, in some cases, be deemed criminal. I am particularly alert to the fact that the east side of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park can become a key hotspot for such behaviour at particular times of the year. I agree with the national park authority that such issues need to be addressed, and they are being tackled on a partnership basis through a range of initiatives.

Land management is also a vital part of the economy. The Cairngorms deer advisory group brings together land managers, public agencies and communities to share information and advice. The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority administers the natural heritage grant scheme, under which more than 50 projects are under way and more than £500,000 in grants is delivered. Also, within the Cairngorms, a land-based business training scheme delivered training to 550 people last year. That figure should be borne in mind.

In terms of social development, both parks are fostering sustainable communities. The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority is running a pioneering community futures programme, which helps communities to prepare local action plans and raise funds. The Cairngorms National Park Authority is a partner in a multi-agency project under the heading "Our Community…A Way Forward", which provides baseline information on communities and their needs and then identifies the priorities for action.

On health matters, both parks are great places to enjoy the outdoors, with the corresponding benefits to physical and mental health. Good progress has been made in both parks on increasing people's access through path improvements. A get active festival in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park last year focused on what are known as the four Bs—boots, bikes, boats and buses—and encouraged people to leave their cars behind and get outdoors.

On education, both parks have been working with Learning and Teaching Scotland and local authorities to develop outdoor learning opportunities as a delivery tool for the curriculum for excellence. Last year, the Europarc Federation junior ranger camp was held in the Cairngorms, and both parks are active on the John Muir award scheme.

I hope that members will now have a clear view of the successes of both parks and their contributions to the promotion of the economic and social development of the areas' communities as well as the many benefits that they bring to Scotland across a wide range of economic, social and educational functions.

I am aware that I have not dealt with the Labour amendment. I promise our Labour friends that I will listen carefully to what they have to say and address the amendment in my closing remarks.

I move,

That the Parliament commends the contribution that Scotland's two national parks make to sustainable social and economic development and to delivering the Greener Scotland agenda; notes the outcome of the National Parks Strategic Review, and welcomes the proposal to set up a National Parks Strategy group to guide future strategy for Scotland's national parks.