Hansard

I have with me Helen Jones and Mike Liddle, who are working on national parks.I will take a few minutes to put three issues on to the agenda for the committee's consideration. First, I will set out the reasons for the original boundary designation. Secondly, I will show why the Executive strongly believes that now is not the right time to change those boundaries. Thirdly, I will set out the particular problems with John Swinney's bill.The designation that was made in 2002 was not made on a whim. The decision was not taken lightly. Having read the evidence that was given to the committee last week, I am struck by the fact that many people in Blair Atholl were not aware of those reasons. I am well aware of Scottish Natural Heritage's recommendation, its consideration of boundary options and the issues that it believed that the Executive needed to consider. SNH's evidence to the committee for consideration of the bill restates its initial advice to ministers that inclusion of the area identified in the bill"would give rise to concern over the size of Park and its manageability by a single Park Authority. It also left in question any implications for the rest of Highland Perthshire. Nevertheless, SNH considered that these concerns were outweighed by the case for inclusion of this area."At the time, SNH made recommendations to the Executive that we then considered. It was a very transparent process. Once the Executive had reached its conclusions on the draft designation order, it had to prepare a statement in support of it under the terms of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Members will recall that we debated the issue at length. The Rural Development Committee scrutinised the Cairngorms National Park Designation, Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Scotland) Order 2003 and the Transport and the Environment Committee was the secondary committee. The Parliament divided on the Rural Development Committee's recommendation and voted for the Executive's position. It then voted 100 to 20 in favour of the order.Parliament gave its consent after lengthy debate. The Executive made its decision and set it out in a statement accompanying the designation order on the following grounds:"Ministers were keen to ensure that the overall size of the park was commensurate with the effective and efficient administration by the national park authority. With this in mind, Ministers had concluded that a smaller Park would be preferable."I draw members' attention to the end of the statement, which says:"Ministers are aware, however, that despite adjustment to the Park's boundaries, some communities on the periphery of the Park will be disappointed at being excluded. The arguments brought forward by such communities were considered seriously, with each case judged on its relative merits. However, when considering such cases the Scottish ministers had to keep in mind what was (or will be) best for the National Park as a whole … The addition of further peripheral areas would weaken the Park's coherent identity and management of the area."Members will have seen in the map that Highland Council prepared for the committee last week just how sharp those choices were. There were arguments for and against inclusion of a number of areas around the park, both then and now. I am happy to pass a copy of the statement to the committee. It is important to make sure that the history of the process is accurately recorded when you consider the bill.The park is the largest in the United Kingdom. At the time, ministers were very concerned that it should be funded properly to address the range of issues that led to its designation. The memorandum that the Executive prepared on this bill sets out the key reasons why we believe that it would be premature to change the boundary now. First, it would be damaging to the park authority's work; secondly, it would have an impact on the national park plan; and thirdly, it would prevent the park authority's progress to complete the local plan for the national park until such time as a new national park plan is in place and has been approved. A process must be gone through to get to the local plan stage.We are now three years into the work of the national park. I believe that the national park authority has done an excellent job in bringing people together—business interests, tourism operators, nature conservation groups, wildlife organisations, land management interests and the range of local authorities and national agencies that are needed to co-ordinate their activities and investment and, crucially, the local people who live in the park.I know that people had concerns about the establishment of the park in the first place. I was Minister for Transport and the Environment when the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 was passed. People had to be persuaded. We had to do a lot of work to convince them of the worth of the park and to give them the feeling that they were its owners and part of its future. I do not want to disrupt the work at this stage and I do not want to delay the good work that has been carried out thus far.I suspect that I am not the only MSP who represents communities that feel that they have experienced consultationitis—after they are consulted, a decision is taken a year or two down the track to take a different approach, they are consulted again and no progress is made. The level of disappointment that would be experienced by communities and businesses in the park area that have been involved in that process in good faith should not be ignored. The sentiments that have been expressed by the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce need to be acknowledged and considered.The park authority and local communities have put a lot of time and effort into preparing their first national park plan, which is currently with the Executive for approval. It is my hope that we can get it finalised so that the park authority can get on with the job that it clearly wants to do.Delay to the park plan would have implications for the local plan, which is also in preparation, and create further uncertainty. I acknowledge that it is a testament to the work carried out by the park authority that such a wide range of interested parties were keen to tell the committee in Blair Atholl that they wanted to join in the success that the Cairngorms national park has been perceived to be so far. However, I do not want to disrupt the momentum by getting in the way of the work that the park authority has done.I said that I would end on the problems that the Executive sees with John Swinney's bill. It is our prime concern that now is not the time to make changes to the park's boundaries for the reasons that I just outlined. However, I will put on record what we see as serious problems with the bill.In passing the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, ministers were clear that we wanted to enshrine the principles of our national parks in primary legislation but use secondary legislation to designate national parks and to deal with the range of important but detailed issues that each national park might throw up. We wanted to provide flexibility in the designation order process and the opportunity to make future changes through secondary legislation, rather than having to go back to primary legislation.The bill does not clearly address the issue of the membership of the park authority. In the short term, John Swinney suggests that there be a Perth and Kinross Council nomination at the expense of one of the Highlands representatives. However, to deliver the extra member that John Swinney proposes in the long run would still require amendments to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and the designation order. Even if we were to pass the bill, it would not finish the process that would need to be followed.The bill is silent on the issue of community representation, which I believe is one of the successes of the national parks that have been put in place. The upshot of passing the bill would be that the park boundaries would need to be redrawn to ensure that the new park residents were given the same rights and opportunities to be involved in active representation as the residents within the park's existing boundaries have. That is an important weakness in the drafting of the bill to which there is no easy fix. We spent a lot of time debating that issue, both in committee and in the Parliament, during the passage of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 to ensure that we got the balance right.Another matter that would need to be resolved is the boundaries, which is not a simple issue. I know that exploring people's detailed concerns about boundaries would not be a simple matter.Finally, finance is also an issue. The memorandum to the bill states that no financial implications would result from passing the bill. The Executive does not agree with that statement. The bill would have significant financial implications. At this stage, the last thing that I want is for the work on the rest of the park and the park plan to be scaled back and undermined in order to carry out the extra work that would be needed if the park was to mean anything to the new area that would be included within its boundaries.There were good reasons for the park designation. Now is a crucial time for getting on and moving ahead with the national park. There are weaknesses in the bill. However, I think that the issues could be addressed at another point. The right time to review the whole boundaries issue is when the quinquennial review of the park is undertaken next year. I believe that we should put the interests of the park first. Next year's quinquennial review will allow us to consider issues that members might have a strong interest in pursuing. I am clear about that.Convener, I know that I have spoken for longer than I would normally do but, after reading last week's evidence to the committee, I was concerned that the Executive needed to say a little bit more to ensure that our position is clear to colleagues. I am happy to take questions.