Hansard

Thank you very much, convener. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to set out the background to my member's bill. I am also grateful that the committee has been able to consider the bill and that a meeting of the committee has been arranged in Blair Atholl next week, to take evidence from a range of local representatives and organisations.The purpose of the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill is to extend the boundaries of the Cairngorms national park to include the parts of highland and eastern Perthshire that were omitted from the park in 2002. Let me make it clear that I was a strong supporter of the park's establishment and I continue to support the Cairngorms National Park Authority's work and the park's role within Scotland. My bill is designed not to dilute the authority's work but to enhance it.In September 2000, ministers made a formal proposal under section 2 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 to establish a national park in the Cairngorms area. Ministers invited Scottish Natural Heritage to undertake the consultation on the proposal and, for 20 weeks, SNH listened carefully to interested parties' views and opinions on the boundaries of the park and the powers, functions, governance arrangements and financial provisions of the park authority.On boundaries, SNH recommended that the park area should include the central Cairngorms and Lochnagar massifs, as well as many of the straths that immediately surround them in Badenoch and Strathspey, Glenlivet, Donside and Deeside and, crucially, in my constituency, the Angus glens and highland Perthshire. The Government's first response to those proposals largely excluded the areas of my constituency in the Angus glens and highland and eastern Perthshire. After an inquiry by the Parliament's Rural Development Committee and much pressure from outside the Parliament, the Government revised its proposals and, in the Cairngorms National Park Designation, Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Scotland) Order 2003, made provision for the inclusion of the Angus glens. Unfortunately, highland and eastern Perthshire remained excluded. The Rural Development Committee unanimously recommended the inclusion of highland and eastern Perthshire in accordance with SNH's recommendations, but the Government did not accept that view, and the designation order was approved without their inclusion. It is important to point out that neither that committee nor the Parliament was able to amend the order. It had to be approved or rejected and, therefore, significant concerns could not be addressed. The boundary issue has remained unresolved and concerns have remained about the exclusion of highland and eastern Perthshire. I have taken a number of steps to tackle the issue. I have pursued it through written and oral parliamentary questions and through a members' business debate to try to change ministers' minds. Ministers have remained opposed to change, and I have opted to pursue a member's bill.I launched the consultation on the bill on 4 November 2005 and distributed it to 34 organisations and individuals in the locality. It was also made available online. The consultation set out the background to the issue and made the case for extending the park's boundaries. Respondents were asked to comment on nine questions that were raised about the park's boundaries and the membership of the park authority. I received 27 responses, which can be viewed at the Scottish Parliament information centre. On 8 June 2006, a document summarising the responses to the consultation was made available. The majority of respondents felt that extending the boundary would bring economic, social and environmental benefits and would remove anomalies that the current park boundary has created. Respondents felt that expanding the boundaries would enhance the achievement of the national park's aims, as set out in the 2000 act. There was consensus—although, I readily admit, not unanimity—that Perth and Kinross Council would require a seat on the Cairngorms National Park Authority.I have opted to use the mechanism of a bill to address the issue, as only ministers have the power to introduce a designation order to specify the boundaries under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. The fact that only ministers have the power to propose a modification of the boundary in a designation order is of equal significance.The bill proposes to extend the Cairngorms national park's boundary to bring in parts of highland and eastern Perthshire. The areas to be added include the forest of Atholl, the community of Blair Atholl, the Beinn Udlamain mountain group to the west of the A9, and an area around the A93 that includes Glas Tulaichean and Spittal of Glenshee but excludes the village of Kirkmichael. The area that the bill proposes to include in the park is set out in a series of 16 boundary maps at 1:50,000 scale that have been deposited with the Scottish Parliament information centre. For the assistance of members, a summary map, which is provided with the policy memorandum, shows the existing boundary and the proposed extension.I judged that the only practical way of setting out the proposed boundary was to show it on a map. That is a rather unusual parliamentary convention, but I am sure members understand that to have described the proposed boundary by grid references or in writing would have been impractical, and might have resulted in a bill as long as "War and Peace". I was happy to follow the precedent that the Executive set and delineate the boundary by reference to a map.As a consequence of adding parts of highland and eastern Perthshire to the national park, the bill would allow Perth and Kinross Council to nominate a member to serve on the Cairngorms National Park Authority, the effect of which would be to reduce the number of members appointed by Highland Council from five to four, to ensure that the authority's membership did not exceed 25, as stipulated in the 2000 act.I estimate that the costs of the bill could be met from the existing resources of the Cairngorms National Park Authority. I estimate that the one-off costs would be in the order of £48,000, which includes £15,000 to revise the national park plan, £5,000 to £6,000 to revise marketing and communication materials, up to £20,000 to change signage, and minor additional costs in relation to the role of board members and other incidental costs.On operating costs, there would be minor additional burdens, which I do not consider significant. The park itself does not directly employ individuals to provide a ranger service, which is perhaps the most expensive service that could be provided. The bulk of park activity is provided on a project-by-project basis. It would therefore be for the park authority to determine how it allocated its resources, what spending took place in highland and eastern Perthshire, and resulting cost increases. An expansion of the park area would open up revenue opportunities, through planning fees and other matters to do with applications in the expanded area.As I said, my objective is to enhance the work of the national park. The aims of the national park, which are set out in the 2000 act, are:"to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area … to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area … to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public, and … to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities."A number of elements of the bill would support and enhance those aims.The inclusion of the proposed area would provide a natural gateway to the national park at Blair Atholl—and from Blair Atholl through Glen Tilt—which would substantially enhance visitor access to the park. The proposed boundary would draw together sites of special scientific interest and enable them to be managed through the national park's cohesive management framework. The proposed boundary would enable entire mountain summits to be managed in a more sustainable and cohesive manner over a wider area, which would improve opportunities for the uniform delivery of biodiversity measures. A proposed buffer area, which would be in the control of the national park authority, would be established around the Cairngorms massif. The inclusion of Spittal of Glenshee would enhance visitor access at the southern approach to the park in east Perthshire.There is a strong and compelling case for the inclusion of highland and eastern Perthshire in the national park. The area is similar in topography to the areas that are included to the north and east. It includes natural gateways to the park at Blair Atholl and through Glenshee. It includes areas of natural character that are worthy of as much protection as are the areas that are already in the park.The communities of highland and eastern Perthshire want to be part of the Cairngorms national park. I hope that the bill will deliver that result sooner rather than later.