Chamber
Plenary, 04 Nov 2009
04 Nov 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
National Parks
I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer.
What a difference a year makes. It is important to record the progress that we have made since our previous debate on national parks in 2008. I turn first to Sarah Boyack's points and the most contentious issues.
In March 2008, I called for a reduction in the size of the boards of our two esteemed national park authorities—to protests, as I recall, from both the Liberals and the Labour Party. I commend the authors of the national parks review for their recommendation that the boards should be reduced in size. As I said in 2008, provided that local democracy can be delivered, I believe that even smaller boards would still achieve the same purposes, but nonetheless I wish the new boards every success in the future and welcome the direction of travel as well as the development of local democracy in governance terms.
In the interest of continuing to reduce costs, I welcome the progress that the national park authorities are making in relation to the report's proposals on the sharing of corporate services and joint working. In the current economic climate, the boards' willingness to develop joint working is greatly to be welcomed.
I also welcome the minister's intention to create a short-life national parks strategy group to examine the further strategic development of our national parks. I again commend to the Parliament the model of the Banff national park in the Canadian Rockies, which was established in 1885 and which first led me to see the enormous benefits of national parks to local ecosystems and economies. The environmental, social and economic benefits that are beginning to accrue for the residents of our national parks and others make the expansion of the parks' boundaries worthy of further consideration.
The possibility of developing other national parks should also be considered. I know that the Presiding Officer has campaigned for a national park to be established in and around the Galloway forest park, and that idea is certainly worthy of support. Indeed, I understand that the Scottish Council for National Parks recently showed interest in pursuing the prospect of a Galloway national park and flagged up the potential of the geography in that part of south-west Scotland as highly conducive to the creation of a joint marine and land-based national park. I am sure that the minister will agree that that idea is worthy of consideration.
Perhaps the short-life working group will also consider the further development and protection of our regional parks in recognition of the important role that they play in protecting and enhancing unique landscapes and their proximity to two of our major cities. As the lungs of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the Clyde Muirshiel regional park and the Pentland hills regional park in particular only have a greater role to play in the future in protecting and enhancing the immediate environs of those cities while delivering tourist destinations of choice and complementing our two national parks.
As more UK residents are likely to holiday at home rather than abroad in the foreseeable future—given Labour's recession and the resulting weakness of the pound—it makes good sense to deliver more activity and eco-based tourism opportunities. Having visited the Clyde Muirshiel regional park during the summer, and having spent much of my teenage years tramping over the Pentlands, I know at first hand about the amazing scenery and the parks' fine views over the Clyde and the Forth. In marketing terms, they could easily be used to complement our truly unique and magnificent national parks at Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms.
Turning to other governance issues, I note the report's recommendation that the convener and deputy convener of the national park authorities should be appointed by the Scottish ministers to ensure the delivery of national policies and objectives. I would have thought that such a position was not unreasonable, but I also note that the majority of consultees felt that the conveners and deputy conveners of the national park authority boards should be elected from the ranks of board members. It is a brave Government decision to accept that view.
Given that the majority of national parks funding comes from Government, the approach recommended in the report would certainly be consistent with regard to accountability and the need to streamline park authorities to ensure value for money. The appointment of the conveners should have been in the gift of the Scottish Government and the fact that they are not might in the future raise questions about the wisdom of the Government's decision. That said, I wish the conveners and deputy conveners every success.
I welcome the progress that the minister has made in the past months. Although the Conservatives believe that yet more could have been done to increase accountability and reduce costs, we nevertheless welcome the progress that has been made towards our shared goal of turning our national parks into destinations of choice for all those who visit Scotland in the future and those of us in Scotland who have time on our hands and want to explore our native landscapes and habitats.
I move and commend to Parliament amendment S3M-5110.2, to insert at end:
"while also welcoming the reduction in the size of the boards of the National Park Authorities, thereby producing greater efficiencies by way of reducing running costs, and emphasising that the proposed National Parks Strategy group must have a clear timescale of operation and well defined sense of purpose in its objectives."
What a difference a year makes. It is important to record the progress that we have made since our previous debate on national parks in 2008. I turn first to Sarah Boyack's points and the most contentious issues.
In March 2008, I called for a reduction in the size of the boards of our two esteemed national park authorities—to protests, as I recall, from both the Liberals and the Labour Party. I commend the authors of the national parks review for their recommendation that the boards should be reduced in size. As I said in 2008, provided that local democracy can be delivered, I believe that even smaller boards would still achieve the same purposes, but nonetheless I wish the new boards every success in the future and welcome the direction of travel as well as the development of local democracy in governance terms.
In the interest of continuing to reduce costs, I welcome the progress that the national park authorities are making in relation to the report's proposals on the sharing of corporate services and joint working. In the current economic climate, the boards' willingness to develop joint working is greatly to be welcomed.
I also welcome the minister's intention to create a short-life national parks strategy group to examine the further strategic development of our national parks. I again commend to the Parliament the model of the Banff national park in the Canadian Rockies, which was established in 1885 and which first led me to see the enormous benefits of national parks to local ecosystems and economies. The environmental, social and economic benefits that are beginning to accrue for the residents of our national parks and others make the expansion of the parks' boundaries worthy of further consideration.
The possibility of developing other national parks should also be considered. I know that the Presiding Officer has campaigned for a national park to be established in and around the Galloway forest park, and that idea is certainly worthy of support. Indeed, I understand that the Scottish Council for National Parks recently showed interest in pursuing the prospect of a Galloway national park and flagged up the potential of the geography in that part of south-west Scotland as highly conducive to the creation of a joint marine and land-based national park. I am sure that the minister will agree that that idea is worthy of consideration.
Perhaps the short-life working group will also consider the further development and protection of our regional parks in recognition of the important role that they play in protecting and enhancing unique landscapes and their proximity to two of our major cities. As the lungs of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the Clyde Muirshiel regional park and the Pentland hills regional park in particular only have a greater role to play in the future in protecting and enhancing the immediate environs of those cities while delivering tourist destinations of choice and complementing our two national parks.
As more UK residents are likely to holiday at home rather than abroad in the foreseeable future—given Labour's recession and the resulting weakness of the pound—it makes good sense to deliver more activity and eco-based tourism opportunities. Having visited the Clyde Muirshiel regional park during the summer, and having spent much of my teenage years tramping over the Pentlands, I know at first hand about the amazing scenery and the parks' fine views over the Clyde and the Forth. In marketing terms, they could easily be used to complement our truly unique and magnificent national parks at Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms.
Turning to other governance issues, I note the report's recommendation that the convener and deputy convener of the national park authorities should be appointed by the Scottish ministers to ensure the delivery of national policies and objectives. I would have thought that such a position was not unreasonable, but I also note that the majority of consultees felt that the conveners and deputy conveners of the national park authority boards should be elected from the ranks of board members. It is a brave Government decision to accept that view.
Given that the majority of national parks funding comes from Government, the approach recommended in the report would certainly be consistent with regard to accountability and the need to streamline park authorities to ensure value for money. The appointment of the conveners should have been in the gift of the Scottish Government and the fact that they are not might in the future raise questions about the wisdom of the Government's decision. That said, I wish the conveners and deputy conveners every success.
I welcome the progress that the minister has made in the past months. Although the Conservatives believe that yet more could have been done to increase accountability and reduce costs, we nevertheless welcome the progress that has been made towards our shared goal of turning our national parks into destinations of choice for all those who visit Scotland in the future and those of us in Scotland who have time on our hands and want to explore our native landscapes and habitats.
I move and commend to Parliament amendment S3M-5110.2, to insert at end:
"while also welcoming the reduction in the size of the boards of the National Park Authorities, thereby producing greater efficiencies by way of reducing running costs, and emphasising that the proposed National Parks Strategy group must have a clear timescale of operation and well defined sense of purpose in its objectives."
In the same item of business
The Minister for Environment (Roseanna Cunningham):
SNP
Today's debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government's thinking on the way ahead for national parks.To start with, I remind all members o...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
We know that this is not a filler debate that has been scheduled simply to enable others to go off to the by-election campaign. I have logged the fact that w...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
The member will remember our exchanges 10 years ago about the directly elected element of the park authorities. Does she accept that, after 10 years, it can ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
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 ...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con):
Con
I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer.What a difference a year makes. It is important to record the progress that we have made since our previous deba...
Liam McArthur (Orkney) (LD):
LD
I welcome this debate on what has been a genuine post-devolution success for Scotland. Like Sarah Boyack, I am in no way disheartened by the suspicion that w...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
That concludes the opening speeches. We come to the open debate. As we have a little time in hand, members should feel free to take interventions and even to...
Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
In his last novel, "The Duke's Children", Anthony Trollope, whom no one would regard as a radical, wrote of a Scottish Highlands that was afflicted by field ...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Yes—I will take this opportunity. Christopher Harvie must remember that people live in the parks and we need supermarkets. I, for one, need a supermarket, as...
Christopher Harvie:
SNP
I do remember that. I also remember that Tesco—that great liberating force—is about to descend on the town of Machynlleth, which has a farmers' market, a sma...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the debate, as others have done, and I hope that it heralds a new period of action on national parks.The motion asks us to commend the two existing...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
In as relaxed a fashion as possible, I call Gil Paterson.
Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and other members for the fact that I need to leave a bit early, unfortunately. I hope that members forgive me—I have a...
Members:
Oh!
Gil Paterson:
SNP
I will tell you about them in private. They are not as naughty as members may think.Few cities have, as Glasgow does, a resource close to them like greater L...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I am pleased to be able to take part in today's debate. Our two national parks, the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, play a large part in the li...
Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Does the member welcome the plans that have been announced to assess 60 abandoned cottages and farmsteads in the Cairngorms for possible conversion to afford...
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
Absolutely—that is marvellous. Consideration should be given to using the rural empty properties grant for that purpose.Constituents in the Cairngorms nation...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Oh!
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
Do you want me to go on?
Members:
No.
Mike Rumbles:
LD
We are spellbound.
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
I wish the minister's national parks strategy group every success, and I hope that any further sensible recommendations can be implemented quickly in the int...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate—and I have been musing on some of the interesting contributions that members have made up to this point.Our ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Rob Gibson:
SNP
I certainly will.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I note that the atmosphere is slightly more relaxed this afternoon.Rob Gibson makes a very good point, which follows what Peter Peacock said. Will Rob Gibson...
Rob Gibson:
SNP
We were talking about bureaucracy, regulation and so on, and it occurred to me that the shackles of present crofting law, together with more regulation, offe...
Liam McArthur:
LD
As a point of clarification, I think that the member was talking about the Labour amendment, which refers to establishing more national parks. I acknowledged...
Rob Gibson:
SNP
I am happy with Liam McArthur's emphasis.