Chamber
Plenary, 13 Mar 2008
13 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
National Parks
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 the legislation provides for, is to find out whether the model can be improved upon to deliver what the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 obliges park authorities to do, which is:
"to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area … to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area … to promote understanding and enjoyment"
of the area's special qualities, and
"to promote … economic and social development of the area's communities."
Having established our national parks, we must move to the next stage and refine and improve on what we have achieved. From my experience—I am tempted to say bitter experience, but it is best not to—I know that a board size of 25 is unwieldy and can be unworkable. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, SNH and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which have annual expenditures of £59 million, £59 million and £103 million respectively, have non-executive board sizes of 11, 15 and 10. One has to compare those budgets with the Loch Lomond National Park Authority budget of £7.4 million and the Cairngorms National Park Authority budget of £5 million. It is easy to see that there are good reasons to ask questions.
It is also easy to see that the board member remuneration as a cost relative to the total annual expenditure of each park authority is significant—I agree with Professor Kay on that. However, setting aside the cost and size of the board—and before criticism is levelled at me for knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing—it is important to take the opportunity that the review offers to examine where the parks go from here.
Scottish Conservatives welcome the Minister for Environment's announcement on extending the boundary of the Cairngorms national park. Under the review, we believe that both national park authorities should on balance be retained, but with much-reduced board sizes of a minimum of eight and a maximum of perhaps 12. We believe in local democracy and representation, and in a grass-roots approach that takes into account local public opinion and does not impose top-down solutions. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report helpfully pointed that out last week.
That is why we welcome the review, and we hope that those who undertake it reach elegant and consensual conclusions that build on the good work that has been done in creating the parks and getting them to where they are today. My colleagues will deal with planning issues around affordable housing and local feeling, and with some of the problems that are still to be ironed out.
I move amendment S3M-1548.1, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Scottish Government to address concerns regarding the structural effectiveness of the national park authorities as presently constituted with a view to enhancing local participation and to address ongoing issues with regard to the southern boundary of the Cairngorms National Park."
Tribute should be paid to those who have carried out and seen through that developmental phase. However, the purpose of the review, which the legislation provides for, is to find out whether the model can be improved upon to deliver what the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 obliges park authorities to do, which is:
"to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area … to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area … to promote understanding and enjoyment"
of the area's special qualities, and
"to promote … economic and social development of the area's communities."
Having established our national parks, we must move to the next stage and refine and improve on what we have achieved. From my experience—I am tempted to say bitter experience, but it is best not to—I know that a board size of 25 is unwieldy and can be unworkable. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, SNH and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which have annual expenditures of £59 million, £59 million and £103 million respectively, have non-executive board sizes of 11, 15 and 10. One has to compare those budgets with the Loch Lomond National Park Authority budget of £7.4 million and the Cairngorms National Park Authority budget of £5 million. It is easy to see that there are good reasons to ask questions.
It is also easy to see that the board member remuneration as a cost relative to the total annual expenditure of each park authority is significant—I agree with Professor Kay on that. However, setting aside the cost and size of the board—and before criticism is levelled at me for knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing—it is important to take the opportunity that the review offers to examine where the parks go from here.
Scottish Conservatives welcome the Minister for Environment's announcement on extending the boundary of the Cairngorms national park. Under the review, we believe that both national park authorities should on balance be retained, but with much-reduced board sizes of a minimum of eight and a maximum of perhaps 12. We believe in local democracy and representation, and in a grass-roots approach that takes into account local public opinion and does not impose top-down solutions. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report helpfully pointed that out last week.
That is why we welcome the review, and we hope that those who undertake it reach elegant and consensual conclusions that build on the good work that has been done in creating the parks and getting them to where they are today. My colleagues will deal with planning issues around affordable housing and local feeling, and with some of the problems that are still to be ironed out.
I move amendment S3M-1548.1, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Scottish Government to address concerns regarding the structural effectiveness of the national park authorities as presently constituted with a view to enhancing local participation and to address ongoing issues with regard to the southern boundary of the Cairngorms National Park."
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 ...