Chamber
Plenary, 13 Mar 2008
13 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
National Parks
Today's debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government's thinking on the future of our national parks. At the outset, I want to say with enthusiasm how exceptionally important our national parks are to Scotland. Indeed, their iconic landscapes put Scotland on the international stage. I also pay tribute to Sarah Boyack, who, as Minister for Transport and the Environment, steered through the legislation. I believe that the National Parks (Scotland) Bill was her first bill as a minister. It stands as testimony to her.
There is enthusiasm across the chamber for the national parks, and we need to build on that. The parks demonstrate sustainable solutions for rural development and environmental protection, and contribute to the Government's greener Scotland and other objectives. There are many examples of how they do that, which, no doubt, will be raised in the debate.
In the five years since the parks were established, they have made good progress. The first-ever national park plans are in place and are being implemented. Many stakeholders are involved under the leadership of the national park authorities. Mike Cantley and Dave Green, the conveners of the national parks, are in the gallery with some of their colleagues. I am sure that everyone who is involved in the parks realises that the time is right for the review that is due to take place. For example, we are committed to simplifying the public sector landscape. It is time for us to ask ourselves some questions and to seek answers.
I will address three issues: the strategic review; the boundary review; and future national park designation. The strategic review of national park functions, which will start in May, will cover both the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national parks. At the moment, each park is an executive non-departmental public body in the shape of a national park authority. We want to look at the arrangements and see what the alternatives are. We also want to learn from experience elsewhere. We recognise that national parks are not the same in every country, but that lessons can be learned nonetheless.
The review will be in two parts. The first stage will address key questions on the organisation of the bodies that run the parks and consider what sort of body should undertake national park functions. I expect it to look at a number of organisational options, including—centrally—the retention of the national park authorities as separate NDPBs. In talking of the review, I want to stress one point only: the primacy of the local democratic element. That element has served the parks well and it needs to come to the fore—indeed, if anything, it needs to be strengthened.
The first stage review will consider employer arrangements—the sort of issues that are being considered across the public sector—and seek views across a wide spectrum. It will be steered by a group on which the existing national park authorities will be represented. Consultation will also take place with the many park stakeholders. The first stage review will present the pros and cons of different models for running the national parks. I give members the commitment not only that we will publish the review findings, but that we hope to debate them. We will also consult on them.
There is enthusiasm across the chamber for the national parks, and we need to build on that. The parks demonstrate sustainable solutions for rural development and environmental protection, and contribute to the Government's greener Scotland and other objectives. There are many examples of how they do that, which, no doubt, will be raised in the debate.
In the five years since the parks were established, they have made good progress. The first-ever national park plans are in place and are being implemented. Many stakeholders are involved under the leadership of the national park authorities. Mike Cantley and Dave Green, the conveners of the national parks, are in the gallery with some of their colleagues. I am sure that everyone who is involved in the parks realises that the time is right for the review that is due to take place. For example, we are committed to simplifying the public sector landscape. It is time for us to ask ourselves some questions and to seek answers.
I will address three issues: the strategic review; the boundary review; and future national park designation. The strategic review of national park functions, which will start in May, will cover both the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national parks. At the moment, each park is an executive non-departmental public body in the shape of a national park authority. We want to look at the arrangements and see what the alternatives are. We also want to learn from experience elsewhere. We recognise that national parks are not the same in every country, but that lessons can be learned nonetheless.
The review will be in two parts. The first stage will address key questions on the organisation of the bodies that run the parks and consider what sort of body should undertake national park functions. I expect it to look at a number of organisational options, including—centrally—the retention of the national park authorities as separate NDPBs. In talking of the review, I want to stress one point only: the primacy of the local democratic element. That element has served the parks well and it needs to come to the fore—indeed, if anything, it needs to be strengthened.
The first stage review will consider employer arrangements—the sort of issues that are being considered across the public sector—and seek views across a wide spectrum. It will be steered by a group on which the existing national park authorities will be represented. Consultation will also take place with the many park stakeholders. The first stage review will present the pros and cons of different models for running the national parks. I give members the commitment not only that we will publish the review findings, but that we hope to debate them. We will also consult on them.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1548, in the name of Michael Russell, on national parks.
The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):
SNP
Today's debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government's thinking on the future of our national parks. At the outset, I want to say with en...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Did the minister say that he accepted that the two parks should remain separate, or that this is part of a review to put them together? Will he make that clear?
Michael Russell:
SNP
I am unlikely to merge the parks physically—that would require more than I am capable of.
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
Surely not.
Michael Russell:
SNP
Jackie Baillie seems to believe that I could achieve even that, but I think that that is unlikely. On the separation of the parks, given that I have spoken o...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
The minister's announcement on the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park is most welcome, but I seek clarity on one issue. On what date is it pro...
Michael Russell:
SNP
All members will accept that the process in the legislation for making changes is slightly cumbersome. If SNH appoints a reporter now, I hope that the proces...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
Zhou Enlai was the premier of the People's Republic of China until 1976. As members may know, he was famous for his skill as a diplomat, as a participant at ...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Does the member agree with me—and, indeed, with the minister—that one of the great success stories of the national parks is the directly elected element of l...
David Stewart:
Lab
I strongly agree with that; in fact, I will reach that issue later in my speech.That progress has included the provision of eco-tourism at Loch Lomond and co...
Michael Russell:
SNP
I am sure that the member is aware that I do not write The Scotsman. I am the person who commissioned the report. The member is right to draw attention to th...
David Stewart:
Lab
I thank the minister for his comments. His earlier announcements perhaps preoccupied some members in the chamber. The minister should by all means look at th...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
I declare an interest as a farmer, although I farm outwith the national park boundaries—as they stand at the moment. I welcome the debate and the minister's ...
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
The important point is surely not the size of the board, but how effective it is and what it delivers. Does the member agree that some of the conclusions tha...
John Scott:
Con
I cannot say whether they are inaccurate, but I respect Professor Kay's report. It has been acknowledged, and I would be the first to acknowledge, that in se...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Will the member give way?
John Scott:
Con
I want to press on.Tribute should be paid to those who have carried out and seen through that developmental phase. However, the purpose of the review, which ...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD):
LD
Scotland's two national parks provide valuable and, more important, unique assets. The previous Executive, and Sarah Boyack in particular, led the way on the...
Michael Russell:
SNP
I am pleased that Jim Hume is quoting Professor Kay, and I will set his mind at rest on the issue of two parks. I may not agree with Professor Kay on everyth...
Jim Hume:
LD
I was actually talking about park authorities. If their roles are reviewed, the autonomy of the two national park authorities should be recognised—that is th...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
It is a pleasure to talk about the next phase in the development of the national parks. I watched the process from the sidelines during the first parliamenta...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I was proud to be involved in the original scrutiny of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and the subsequent setting up of national parks in Loch Lomond and ...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
The two national parks play a significant part in my region. They are both young, although they are growing up, and at present they need encouragement rather...
Michael Russell:
SNP
Before the member becomes totally carried away, I will make clear something that I clarified on Saturday when I was consulted about The Scotsman story. The r...
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
Excellent; keep saying it.
Michael Russell:
SNP
I would be happy to keep saying it to Jackie Baillie forever.
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
I am delighted to hear the minister reiterate that.Ministers will conduct a formal review of the Scottish national parks later in the year and Professor Kay'...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
We probably agree that it is time to review where we are with the national parks. However, I will start with a quotation from some wonderful spin that I foun...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD):
LD
I am fortunate enough to have part of the Cairngorms national park in my region. As well as being a world-class area of outstanding natural environment, the ...