Chamber
Plenary, 21 Mar 2007
21 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill: Stage 1
I am an assiduous watcher of "Yes, Minister" DVDs. Unfortunately, today I am in the position of the Sir Humphrey brigade, who often say, "Yes, of course I support this radical reform in principle," but then find all sorts of objections to it in practice. I find the position slightly uncomfortable. If the debate had terminated at the end of John Swinney's speech, I would have been even more uncomfortable, but it is an unfortunate fact of politics that one's problems are often with one's allies. Having listened to Messrs Lochhead and Brocklebank, I now find it far easier to oppose Mr Swinney's bill.
Timing is an issue. Virtually everyone agrees that the area of the park should be extended—I certainly thought that it should. However, we have to consider the timing when we consider a sensible way of proceeding. Mr Brocklebank spoke about "the first sensible opportunity". Surely the Executive's argument is that now is not a sensible opportunity and that it would be better to integrate consideration of an extension into the quinquennial review of the whole park set-up.
Mr Brocklebank managed to extend the delay by three or four years. I suppose that he thinks that Mr Swinney's bill could take effect tomorrow. In fact, it would be months before it could take effect.
Because of my involvement with procedures in the Parliament, I have particular views. I am not enthusiastic about members' bills being introduced on a timetable that means that they will not get through the process in the current session of Parliament and will have to be resumed in the next session of Parliament.
The timing issue can be resolved to some extent if the minister or her successor brings forward consideration of the park's boundaries, so that it happens before other aspects of the quinquennial review. I presume that the park's governance must reflect the boundaries as they will be, so it would be reasonable to agree the boundaries before agreeing other governance matters.
There are also democratic issues—members can pooh-pooh them if they like—and community issues, as well as financial issues, although those could be addressed. It might be that people are being slightly petty about councils' representation. However, putting an important organisation's nose out of joint unnecessarily is not a good way of governing a country.
There is an argument for reviewing the park's boundaries before other matters are considered as part of a coherent review. People might think that other areas should be included. Members might pooh-pooh that argument too, but Mr Swinney has focused on particular areas that he represents—and rightly so. He deserves great credit for pursuing his constituents' cause and I admire him for doing so, but on balance—the close vote in the committee shows that this is a matter of balance—and having talked to ministers, I am narrowly persuaded that the argument for taking action slightly later but in a more coherent fashion can be sustained. However, I wish Mr Swinney the best of luck in future in enlarging the park in a sensible manner.
Timing is an issue. Virtually everyone agrees that the area of the park should be extended—I certainly thought that it should. However, we have to consider the timing when we consider a sensible way of proceeding. Mr Brocklebank spoke about "the first sensible opportunity". Surely the Executive's argument is that now is not a sensible opportunity and that it would be better to integrate consideration of an extension into the quinquennial review of the whole park set-up.
Mr Brocklebank managed to extend the delay by three or four years. I suppose that he thinks that Mr Swinney's bill could take effect tomorrow. In fact, it would be months before it could take effect.
Because of my involvement with procedures in the Parliament, I have particular views. I am not enthusiastic about members' bills being introduced on a timetable that means that they will not get through the process in the current session of Parliament and will have to be resumed in the next session of Parliament.
The timing issue can be resolved to some extent if the minister or her successor brings forward consideration of the park's boundaries, so that it happens before other aspects of the quinquennial review. I presume that the park's governance must reflect the boundaries as they will be, so it would be reasonable to agree the boundaries before agreeing other governance matters.
There are also democratic issues—members can pooh-pooh them if they like—and community issues, as well as financial issues, although those could be addressed. It might be that people are being slightly petty about councils' representation. However, putting an important organisation's nose out of joint unnecessarily is not a good way of governing a country.
There is an argument for reviewing the park's boundaries before other matters are considered as part of a coherent review. People might think that other areas should be included. Members might pooh-pooh that argument too, but Mr Swinney has focused on particular areas that he represents—and rightly so. He deserves great credit for pursuing his constituents' cause and I admire him for doing so, but on balance—the close vote in the committee shows that this is a matter of balance—and having talked to ministers, I am narrowly persuaded that the argument for taking action slightly later but in a more coherent fashion can be sustained. However, I wish Mr Swinney the best of luck in future in enlarging the park in a sensible manner.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5758, in the name of John Swinney, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Cairngorms...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the Environment and Rural Development Committee for the consideration that it has given the bill and for hosting an evidence session in my constituen...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
I am one of the members to whom John Swinney referred. I felt that the boundaries should not have excluded highland Perthshire and that to do so was wrong. I...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I understand the dilemma that faces members when they deal with designation orders that are not well defined or well argued for, as with the order for the Ca...
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con):
Con
As the convener of the Rural Development Committee in those days, I put it on record that although the committee was in a huge dilemma, as Mike Rumbles said,...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I am grateful to Mr Fergusson for that remark and for the way in which he has pursued the issue assiduously and supported efforts to remedy the situation ove...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
Would Mr Swinney, as the SNP's finance spokesman, like to reflect on the value for money of the committee's decision? Parliament has spent a lot of time and ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Mr Fraser makes a reasonable point. Not only will the consultation have to be done again, but if we agree to extend the boundaries, that might involve reloca...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I thank the committee's clerks for their invaluable support and I thank all those who supplied written and oral evidence. In particular, I thank the people o...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
Since giving evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, I have had exchanges with the committee and with John Swinney on the detail of his ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Will the minister give way?
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No. I am in my first minute, so I ask John Swinney to let me get going.In my evidence to the committee, I was absolutely clear about three things. First, I w...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
The minister has talked about affordable housing and the need to guarantee environmental protection for all the areas in the Cairngorms national park, which ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I am happy to address that full on. This morning, I met the chair of the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce—which, incidentally, did not exist when we started di...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
As the minister will be aware, I represent West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, which is on the other side of the boundary from the area that John Swinney repr...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Let me be absolutely clear: as part of its considerations, evidence was presented to the Environment and Rural Development Committee specifically on business...
Richard Lochhead (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
I begin by congratulating John Swinney, the local constituency member, for doggedly pursuing the campaign since 2003. I also pay tribute to his campaigning c...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
As a point of accuracy, the serious concerns that are being raised are about changing the boundaries at this time. That is the key issue about which there ar...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I am pointing out to the minister the extent to which representations are being made, given that two of the constituency members who have spoken in the debat...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
John Swinney's member's bill is about righting a wrong. In that, it is fairly unusual. In my experience, much of the legislation that is passed by the Parlia...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
Does Ted Brocklebank understand that someone who arrived from planet Mars might wonder whether he is debating the merits of Nora Radcliffe or of the bill?
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
I am not sure what that intervention meant, but it might have made more sense if Nora Radcliffe or the other members whom I have mentioned were here to respo...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Excuse me. The Lib Dems are not hell-bent on kicking out John Swinney's bill. I shall certainly support it at decision time.
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
I thank Mr Rumbles for keeping me right, but I am still not sure that the minister has given an adequate answer as to why the Executive as a whole appears to...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
I am an assiduous watcher of "Yes, Minister" DVDs. Unfortunately, today I am in the position of the Sir Humphrey brigade, who often say, "Yes, of course I su...
Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green):
Green
I, too, remember the excellent work of the Rural Development Committee in the first session of the Scottish Parliament. At the time, I was not a member of th...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
A substantial part of the Cairngorms national park lies in my constituency and in that of Mike Rumbles. From the south at Dalwhinnie to the north at Cromdale...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
It would be helpful if I clarified two points. First, the challenge is not the number of people in settlements—although I was concerned about their being exc...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I do not accept that that work would in any way be disrupted. Why should it? It would simply be supplemented in respect of an area with very few people and o...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I start by declaring an interest, as I did during the committee's consideration of the bill. I am a former member of the Cairngorms working party and was br...