Hansard

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 community action planning in the Cairngorms national park.

Taking a step back in time, members will be well aware that the founding father of national parks was a Scot, John Muir, who left Dunbar as a young man for a life in America. His efforts led to the development of the worldwide national parks movement. John Muir was influential in setting up Yellowstone national park in 1872, which was signed into law by President Ulysses S Grant. In the United Kingdom, James Bryce campaigned at Westminster in 1879 for the establishment of national parks. The Ramsay report of 1945 recommended five national parks and three reserve areas.

Coming closer to the modern day, in 1990 the Countryside Commission for Scotland recommended four national parks, consistent with the principles established by the Ramsay report.

National parks have been a reality throughout the world for many years. The key question that historians might ask is why Scotland took so long to create its first two national parks. We can leave that debate to them, but we must get on and ensure that our national parks are fulfilling their roles and responsibilities.

The other day, I read the Official Report of the debates in the Parliament on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. I was struck by the passion and enthusiasm of members across the political divide, many of whom are here today. Members argued strongly about the principles and provisions of the bill. They discussed the idea of having parks of national importance, but with local communities at their heart—the minister referred to that—and flexibility to allow for the "distinctiveness of different areas" of Scotland; to let local people decide things for themselves; to sustain people and resources; and to develop a "thriving rural economy" while sustaining "natural and cultural heritage."

Reading the Official Report, I was struck by the bipartisan approach in the chamber, with emphasis being placed on innovation, partnership and the integration of aims—the overlapping circles—in the social, the economic and the environmental. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 was built on the well-developed Sandford principle. Lord Sandford, as members know, was a Tory peer who chaired the national parks review in England and Wales in 1974. He said that national parks' aims were twofold: to conserve the environment and to provide access to the public. If conflict arose between the two, conservation of the environment would take priority. Although that approach applied to England and Wales, it could be argued that the 2000 act represented Sandford plus in adding economic and social considerations into the mix.

We do not want communities that are situated within the national parks to stand still. Dedicated national parks make it possible to take into account the needs of the whole area when deciding whether a development should take place. The review that the minister announced comes at the right time for us to take stock and compare aspirations with reality, and I believe that it will be welcomed across the spectrum of environmental non-governmental organisations, from RSPB Scotland to the Ramblers Association—and, of course, the John Muir Trust.

I believe strongly that national parks are testament to the value that a nation places on protecting its environment and natural heritage. They are, in effect, the nation's champions. They must work in partnership with local communities and NGOs, for example in protecting biodiversity, tackling climate change, promoting tourism, promoting locally grown food and providing a voice for local people in campaigning for the development of affordable housing.

The debate on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill was about how to balance the sometimes conflicting push for economic development with the pull of social inclusion. There will be different solutions in different areas, but my belief is that a bureaucratic decision made in a bunker at Victoria Quay or St Andrew's house is not the way forward. We do not want national park objectives to be determined by a top-down approach to decision making, in a manner akin to the Kremlin in the Soviet Union deciding on ball-bearing production in the Ukraine. The real benefit of having a national park board that is made up of local councillors is that the needs of the whole area can be considered when a decision is made on whether a particular development should take place.

The structures that have been in place have, by and large, worked. I live a short drive from the northern boundary of the Cairngorms national park, and I have seen at first hand the work being done on LEADER + and the community-based rural development plans. I have seen the work on land management, through the Cairngorms deer advisory group. I have seen the work on renewable energy—supporting green energy, but opposing large-scale conventional wind farms.

In that context, I read with interest Professor Kay's analysis of environmental governance in Scotland. As we have heard, the report was commissioned by the minister. I was a bit disappointed when I saw it trailed in the national press under the headline "National park authorities have a mountain to climb". That article, which was in The Scotsman on 8 March, said:

"A damning report on Scotland's two national parks says they have become a ‘clunky, cumbersome, formal and bureaucratic muddle' and calls for ‘root-and-branch' review of their quango status."

It also refers to the parks being

"rolled back into Scottish National Heritage."