Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 13 November 2013

13 Nov 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

National Parks

Wheelhouse, Paul SNP South Scotland Watch on SPTV

Many interesting and positive comments have been made about national parks in Scotland. I congratulate Claire Baker on bringing the issue to the attention of members today.

Much has been said in the debate about the successes of our two existing national parks, and I fully endorse those remarks. Scotland’s national parks are two of our greatest national assets and are very important for Scotland. I fully recognise their success—which was outlined by Claire Baker, Sarah Boyack, Claudia Beamish, Alex Fergusson and Christine Grahame—in protecting species and habitats, promoting tourism, and providing social and economic benefits to the communities that they serve and to the rest of the country.

Recently, I had the pleasure of chairing two meetings with the national parks and their partners to review progress with the latest five-year partnership plans. I was struck by the extent to which both national parks have a broad range of partners in the public, private and third sectors with which they are working to deliver both locally and on a national scale.

I met the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland at the beginning of September to discuss the “Unfinished Business” report. The meeting included Charles Strang of the APRS, who lives in Yetholm in the Scottish Borders and who is particularly passionate about the Cheviots as a candidate for a national park, and Mr Mayhew. We had a candid exchange of views on the report’s main recommendations. I welcome the opportunity provided by Claire Baker’s motion to share my views with members today.

First, there is the report’s proposition, which is repeated in the motion, that there should be a long-term national strategy for future national parks in Scotland. I fully understand where the SCNP and the APRS are coming from on that. Nearly half of the report sets out the trials and tribulations of the national park movement in Scotland over the past 65 years. As Alex Fergusson noted, the language used in the report—for example, “The Long Struggle” and “Unfinished Business”—says it all: the SCNP and the APRS think that there is a lot of catching up to do, which I acknowledge. That is why they are now calling for a long-term strategy in which at least seven areas of Scotland would be earmarked for future national park status.

There are two main reasons why I cannot agree to such a strategy at this time, the first of which is about resources in the current economic climate. It cannot have escaped the attention of the SCNP and the APRS that these are difficult times and that there are considerable pressures on public finances at present. We have suffered an 11 per cent drop in our resource budget and a 26 per cent cut in capital. As members have acknowledged, we simply do not have the resources at this time for new national park authorities, which would of course require set-up costs and a recurrent cost thereafter.

Secondly, I have said to the SCNP and the APRS that I appreciate that my decision will disappoint them, but I do not think that the suggestion of earmarking areas for possible future national park status is a good one at this time.