Hansard

The debate has been interesting and entertaining. Initially, I felt that my colleague Sarah Boyack was being rather modest in not mentioning the fact that she was the minister who introduced the national parks legislation, although other members have referred to that fact. I remember the National Parks (Scotland) Bill well, as it was the first bill that I dealt with in depth after becoming an MSP, when we considered it in the Rural Affairs Committee. We spent a lot of time on the bill—indeed, in those days I was so enthusiastic about having a bill to consider that when it was published I read it on the train on the way home. Unfortunately I am not quite as enthusiastic now, after all these years.

The legislation was a long time in coming—Scotland's first national park was established some 51 years after the first one was created in England and Wales, and I doubt whether we would have any national parks yet if it had not been for devolution.

The minister reminded us of the four aims of the 2000 act. I must say that I was a little concerned when I first read the Government's motion, because it appeared to commend the parks for their contribution to the Government's agenda. The national parks were not established to promote the priorities of the first Scottish Executive, nor should their purpose now be to promote this Government's agenda. The parks' contribution to conservation and to promoting biodiversity and environmental benefit is as important as their contribution to social and economic development.

I was reassured, however, after hearing the minister's speech, in which she highlighted the fourth plank of the 2000 act, which is unique to Scotland—I am happy to accept that. Christopher Harvie's contribution was entertaining as always, although I am not sure that it was always relevant to the topics under discussion. It is certainly true, as other members have said, that our two national parks are remarkable and contribute greatly to their regions. Peter Peacock mentioned that the parks strengthened the identity of their respective areas, and Jackie Baillie spoke about the ways in which the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park had worked to meet various challenges, and its success in dealing with matters such as the revision of the byelaws.

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park is within an hour's drive of 50 per cent of Scotland's population, which probably includes the people of Glasgow North East, so it is not irrelevant to them. The park has 22 larger lochs, and around 50 rivers. The Cairngorms national park has perhaps a smaller cohort of people around it, but it contains some 25 per cent of Britain's threatened species. Those are tremendous areas, and there are, of course, great challenges for the national park authorities—to which they rise—in maintaining those areas and facilities. I am sure that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs rose to the challenge of dealing with the unmentionable acts that Gil Paterson confessed to committing in the park.

There was some disappointment at the time of the Government's announcement in August that the review, which was supposed to be in two stages, would be undertaken only in one stage, and that the report seemed to concentrate on governance issues. I am pleased that the national park authorities were not sacrificed on the bonfire of the NDPBs. The report focused on things such as changes to and reductions in board membership. Many of us believe that there are other strategic issues that should be reviewed.

In August, the Government announced its proposal to establish a national parks strategy group. We welcome that, but we believe that its remit is rather constrained. It focuses on how the work of the national parks contributes to the Government's agenda, which sounds a bit like a justification for retaining them. I hope that that is not the case. Also, the membership of the group seems rather worthy and governmental. It includes the chairs of the park authorities, the Scottish Government's rural director, SNH, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, one other NDPB and one independent member. I hope that it will be a bit wider than that, going beyond local and central Government to encompass a wider agenda. Peter Peacock made a number of interesting suggestions about what that wider agenda could be.

Seven years into the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park and six years into the Cairngorms national park, there are surely more extensive and informative issues that could be discussed. For example, is additional support required to enable the parks to fulfil their potential? Jackie Baillie made a bid for resources for her local park. We could look at what has been learned about partnership working and consider whether that can be translated into other aspects of rural development planning. How do our national parks compare with those in other countries? Sarah Boyack mentioned the international recognition of our parks. Are we marketing them well enough through VisitScotland?

Rob Gibson asked about the effect on the bits between the parks. What has been the effect on other areas that are not part of a national park? For example, have the jet-skis and power boats descended on them? Has the concentration on sustainability and conservation reduced in non-park areas or have the parks acted as examples of good practice?

Our amendment raises the crucial question of whether we are going to stop at having two national parks. We believe that Scotland has the potential to have more national parks. We do not suggest, as I think one member did, that loads of national parks should be created willy-nilly. That is not the purpose of our amendment. However, two years ago, when the review was announced, the Scottish Council for National Parks urged the Government to set up a family of land and marine-based national parks throughout Scotland. If we look further back to 1945, the Ramsay committee, which Linda Fabiani mentioned, recommended the creation of five national parks and three reserve areas in Scotland. Sixty years later, we still have a fair way to go.

The previous Scottish Executive consulted on the establishment of a coastal and marine national park, but the idea was shelved by the current Government. That was disappointing to the many people, including me, who supported the Solway Firth's bid. The Scottish Wildlife Trust argues in its briefing for today's debate:

"the case for Scottish Coastal and Marine National Parks is compelling and one or more CMNPs should be identified once marine legislation has completed its passage through the Scottish Parliament."

In response to a question that I asked, the minister's predecessor told the chamber that the matter might be reconsidered after the Marine (Scotland) Bill has completed its passage, if there is sufficient community support. I believe that such support already exists. I hope that the minister will confirm that that is still the Government's intention and that she will tell us whether she intends to reopen consultation on the matter. I am pleased that the minister confirmed that the criteria for new national parks will be part of the strategy group's considerations.

I am pleased that John Scott supports the creation of additional national parks, although I did note some splits in the Conservative party. John Scott was a lot more enthusiastic about national parks than Jamie McGrigor was, and Nanette Milne seemed to have rather different views from John Scott on the size of the boards. Perhaps they need to speak to one another about the issues. I welcome the fact that Liam McArthur said that the Liberal Democrats support the proposal.

I turn to the other amendments. As Sarah Boyack said, we have reservations about them. I am not convinced that they are necessary. The Conservative amendment suggests that the reason for the review and the changes to the boards was to save money. Efficiency is always to be welcomed, but the focus of any change should be the effective running of the national parks. Moreover, the cost of running the boards is small compared with the cost of running and policing the parks. An effective board will do what the boards of our two national parks have done and lever in significant external funding.