Hansard

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 process for the boundary change can be aligned with the review process. Therefore, my expectation is that the changes will come at about the turn of the year or early next year. The boundary change process will be aligned with the review, so that if other changes are to be made, we will not be acting in a piecemeal fashion. However, we have certainly accepted the boundary change—it will happen and, I hope, within that timescale.

The national park review that I have announced will be strategic and fundamental, in that it will consider the organisation arrangements for national park functions. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the review should also consider possible criteria for future national park designation. In doing so, the review will need to build on the foundations of the original legislation. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 lays down three conditions. First, the area should be

"of outstanding national importance because of its natural heritage or the combination of its natural and cultural heritage".

Secondly, the area should have

"a distinctive character and a coherent identity".

The third condition is that the designation

"would meet the special needs of the area"

and ensure

"that the National Park aims are … achieved … in a co-ordinated way."

That work will be undertaken in the second stage of the review, once we have addressed the question of how national park functions should be delivered. There is also the question of coastal or marine national parks, although we have made it clear that we do not intend to take a position on their possible role in advance of the enactment of the proposed marine legislation.

For the third time, I stress that communities must be seen as central to the national park process. I am a strong supporter of community-led initiatives. It makes sense for the Government to consider national park designation where communities are supportive. Recently, I was approached by the community trust in North Harris, which believes that national park designation would benefit that island area. I believe that the North Harris Trust will announce today that it intends to consult the wider electorate in the area for its views on seeking national park designation and, if possible, to do more work on that. I strongly support that initiative.

I have made it clear in a meeting with representatives of the North Harris Trust that I cannot give a commitment to any group that such a process will necessarily lead to a new designation. There are, of course, funding issues to be considered. My duty would be to weigh up the case that is made by the community, alongside the statutory considerations. In addition, we have a tight spending review. However, if the community trust moves forward in that way, by consulting the community, it will be a model for others to follow, in which community initiative drives forward the process of possible designation.

I have given only an outline of the review—I am sure that my friend Mr Lochhead will go into much more detail when he responds to the debate—but I hope that it indicates not only our openness of mind on future structures, but our strong commitment to the two areas that are designated and to the communities there. I am happy to note that both the Labour and Tory amendments take account of that and are encouraging about taking the review forward.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Liberal Democrat amendment because it would very much tie the hands of the review. Mr Rumbles asks, from a seated position, in what way it would do that. I will give a specific response. As members know—particularly those who represent the area that is covered by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park—there is an issue around the ability of the parks as non-departmental public bodies to dispose of assets and to reinvest those resources in the running of the park. The present dispensation of the park does not allow that, so it is important that the review considers ways in which that might change. Tying the review to the exact existing model, as the Liberal Democrat amendment would do, would create considerable difficulty. I would have been happy to accept a Liberal amendment in which the wording had been amended, and I am sorry that that Mr Hume did not accept that, despite discussion.

I hope that members can coalesce around three clear principles: first, that the review will be positive and forward looking, and will attempt to build on the undoubted great success of the national parks; secondly, that the review will consider the possibility of including other areas and developing the functions of the national parks; and thirdly, that where communities are keen to be involved in a national park movement, they have an opportunity at least to tell the people of Scotland that they have that interest. In those senses, therefore, I am happy to commend the motion to the chamber and I hope that it will be a positive step forward, which will enhance what has already happened in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the forthcoming strategic review of Scotland's two national parks; welcomes the opportunities that the national parks give to Scotland's citizens and visitors, and in particular commends their contribution to the greener Scotland agenda.