Committee
Environment and Rural Development Committee, 31 Jan 2007
31 Jan 2007 · S2 · Environment and Rural Development Committee
Item of business
Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill: Stage 1
I accept unreservedly that there has to be logic to the boundary. My trouble is that I do not see how that logic applies to the current boundary. If we were to walk west through the territory of the Angus glens, all of which is in the national park, and continue on, we would see no change whatsoever in the topographical pattern of the area, but we would be outside the national park. In the process, we would have cut a few mountains in half and excluded one half from the national park.In relation to the southern boundary—I pass no judgment on any decisions on any other part of the park—the SNH process was successful in retaining the topographical symmetry in different areas, so that we had an integrated attitude about the components of the national park.Obviously, there will be areas outside the boundary—Peter Peacock mentioned Ben Vrackie and Killiecrankie—and SNH consulted extensively on that, which brings me back to his point that there has to be a line somewhere. I have tried to apply a logical line—okay, Ben Vrackie is outside it—but if we applied the logic that it is impossible to say where a boundary should be, we would not be able to define a boundary for the Cairngorms national park at all, because something would be outside the line. We have to put the line somewhere. The bill's proposal for the park at the southern end is more logical than the current proposition.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Lab
Agenda item 3 is the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill. The committee has been appointed as lead committee, and our stage 1 consideration of the bill, w...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
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...
The Convener:
Lab
Thank you. I am slightly puzzled. Why have you introduced the bill, given that the quinquennial review of the park will take place in 2008? The boundaries wi...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
You raise two issues. First, the park's boundaries have been a source of concern and unease for some time among the communities that I represent. I thought t...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I say to John Swinney that I speak as a fellow representative of part of the Cairngorms national park and as a former member of the Rural Development Committ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I am sure that Mr Lochhead has seen the letter from Ross Finnie, dated some time in November 2006, that sets out some of the issues. It is not my place to sp...
Eleanor Scott:
Green
This is probably not a fair question to ask you, because it arises from one of the other witness's submissions. You talked about bringing in sites of special...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
The existing boundary means that half a mountain can be in the national park and the other half can be out of it. The boundary crosses mountain summits and, ...
Eleanor Scott:
Green
Does your proposed boundary avoid splitting mountains in two?
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Yes, to the best of my ability.
Rob Gibson:
SNP
You said that your proposals would naturally involve the inclusion of a representative from Perth and Kinross Council on the national park board. The nationa...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I have adhered to the principle that has been applied to the composition of the park authority board as it is today, which is that each local authority that ...
Rob Gibson:
SNP
Thank you for that detailed explanation.We will speak to other witnesses in due course, but will we receive submissions from other councils? We do not seem t...
The Convener:
Lab
We will get them next week.
Rob Gibson:
SNP
It would have been helpful to have them now.
The Convener:
Lab
Point noted.
Peter Peacock:
Lab
I should draw attention to the interest that I declared at last week's meeting, which is that I once served on the Cairngorms working party, a body that prec...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
In your declaration of interests, you mentioned the Cairngorms Partnership. Perth and Kinross Council was always a party to the discussions of the Cairngorms...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
Notwithstanding what you said about SNH, and your argument about Laggan being in the park whereas SNH did not recommended it, do you accept that, whatever bo...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I accept unreservedly that there has to be logic to the boundary. My trouble is that I do not see how that logic applies to the current boundary. If we were ...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
I share your desire to find a logical boundary in all circumstances. However, you have already conceded that it is not always possible to find an absolutely ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Because it is not an absolute science, the logic of any boundary should stand up to scrutiny.
Peter Peacock:
Lab
The judgment should stand up to scrutiny.
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Regardless of whether you call it the logic or the judgment, it must stand up to scrutiny. As I indicated to the committee, if we went on a walk westwards th...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
If you and I linked arms and walked south, rather than west as you suggested, what would be the immediate logic of the boundary that you propose? Would the t...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
The topography begins to change as you go further south. My point is that it does not change as you go west, and that you end up in a very similar environmen...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
All the way to Fort William?
Mr Swinney:
SNP
No, but the boundary must relate in some way to the long title of the bill.
The Convener:
Lab
We do not want to get into the logic of county boundaries, parliamentary constituency boundaries or any other kind of boundary.
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
I have two brief questions. I hope that John Swinney does not interpret them as indicating any hostility on my part towards the aspirations of the bill.I wan...