Hansard

The member did not need to wait until today to hear my comments on that. In numerous debates since the establishment of the parks, I have said that that has been a success. Indeed, at the time when that approach was discussed, I said that I hoped that it would bring benefits. I believe that the evidence shows that it has done so. The combination of directly elected local people who reflect the different geographies of our national parks, local authority representatives and national representatives has given the parks a range of people to draw on. When I address the Liberal Democrats' amendment, I will comment on how we can move forward in that regard.

That is where we are now. The Scottish Government's motion does not tell us a great deal, apart from the fact that it has effectively decided to park the issue of what happens next with regard to national parks until after the next election. In some ways, that is a pity, because there are other things that we could be doing now with regard to setting up new national parks, particularly marine and coastal national parks.

Roseanna Cunningham has not expressed her views on our amendment, so I hope that I do not talk her out of supporting it. We have crafted it quite carefully. It asks the Scottish Government simply to

"explore the potential for establishing new national parks, including in marine and coastal areas."

We could have just said that the Government should get on with setting up a marine coastal national park, because SNH has done work on the issue, extensive work was commissioned by Ross Finnie when he was the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and the matter has been debated in Parliament and enthusiastically supported by a large number of us. However, I have accepted reality and that the SNP, by virtue of having one extra vote, is in the driving seat. That is why I asked only that the Government should explore the potential. I do not think that that ties the Government down too much.

The SNP ministers made a commitment to consider the issue of establishing a marine coastal national park once the wider legislative framework for the marine environment is completed. That work has not been totally completed, but it is well under way, and I know that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is beginning to draft its stage 2 amendments to the Marine (Scotland) Bill. Given that a national parks strategy group is being established, it would be a great pity if marine and coastal national parks were excluded from its agenda, which is how it will be interpreted if the Labour amendment is not supported today.

It is not only members on the Labour side of the chamber who hold that view. I know that the Liberal Democrats have previously been very enthusiastic about marine and coastal national parks, and a range of environmental groups outwith the Parliament view it as the next natural step in developing new national parks.

We can see some fantastic examples around the globe of marine national parks that have been very successful in increasing fishing stocks and local tourism, and which have added to the protection of some of the world's most important marine environments. It would be a big mistake to rule out exploring the potential of establishing new national parks in general, and particularly in marine and coastal areas. The Scottish Wildlife Trust has argued that we need a timescale for action, and I look forward to hearing the minister discuss when she sums up the debate how the new national parks strategy group will progress those issues.

It is not a question only of marine coastal national parks; a new national park on Harris has also been suggested. If the Labour amendment is not agreed today, will that proposal effectively be parked until the next Scottish Parliament elections? That would be a pity, as work could be carried out now to consider that in much more depth.

There is a great deal of enthusiasm for national parks, and the experience of our first two national parks makes the case for more to be established. However, we need criteria for and a proper robust approach to developing those national parks, which is why we have—constructively, we believe—suggested an amendment to give the Government's motion a bit of bite. It would give the national parks strategy group the opportunity to examine the potential for new national parks, including in marine and coastal areas, and would be an intelligent amendment to the Government's suggestions in its motion. I hope that the minister will agree to consider the issue.

We want to celebrate the opportunities that have arisen from the creation of our national parks and the particular contribution that local communities have made. I have some questions on that, and I am interested to hear John Scott and Liam McArthur speak to their amendments this afternoon. With regard to John Scott's amendment, we on the Labour side of the chamber do not believe it is a simple equation to say that, if you reduce the size of the boards of the national park authorities, you automatically produce greater efficiencies and reduce running costs. We think that there are questions to be answered in relation to that amendment.

It is clear from the responses to the minister's questionnaire from both national park authorities that they have reservations about reducing the size of the national park boards. One of the opportunities that have arisen from the creation of the new national parks is the contribution of local members, which is the point that I made in response to Mike Rumbles. The directly elected members and the local authority members have a very important role to play, and we should not kid ourselves by thinking that, if the minister is successful in reducing the numbers, it will not lead to issues that both national park authorities will have to deal with.

Those board members are not just there to sit and vote through policies; they are there to work. If people are not sitting on the boards, the national park authorities will have to involve them in other ways. There are already sub-committees that deal with recreation and planning in both national park authorities, and certain issues need to be addressed. We should not assume that reducing the numbers will be an easy way to cut the budgets; it will not work like that.

The issue of balance in board membership is important, and I look forward to hearing Liam McArthur's comments on the matter. Changing the balance has to be done with extreme care. Local authorities make a contribution to the national park boards and, even though their members are not directly elected, the system enables political parties of all perspectives in different areas of the two national parks to be represented on the national park boards. Those members bring a partnership with and resources from local authorities, and it would be a pity to reduce that contribution. Equally, the national representatives—even though they were appointed under an SNP Government—reflect the national interest, which is one of the purposes of national parks.

We are—perhaps like Roseanna Cunningham—slightly sceptical about the Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments, and we would like to hear the arguments.

The national resources issue is important. I am glad that the two national parks contribute to the SNP Government's core objectives, but they have wider objectives too. Regardless of the colour of the Government of the day, our national parks must be with us for a long time and they must be supported. The strategy group must be seen as an opportunity to consider not just the successes of our existing national parks but where the new national parks should be and, crucially, the pressures that both national parks are facing.

The national parks need support. Today's debate is an opportunity for us to suggest priorities and express support for the parks. Let us look to the future and consider where the new national parks should be, and let us not rule out marine and coastal national parks. A lot of work has been done already, but there is a huge contribution still to be made. I hope that the minister will listen to our constructive arguments today and think about supporting our amendment at decision time. We believe that the argument is strong and that it would add to the strength of the ministerial group that she is going to set up.

I move amendment S3M-5110.1, to leave out from "to guide" to end and insert:

"and believes that it should explore the potential for establishing new national parks, including in marine and coastal areas."