Hansard

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 we are here because our respective business managers have deemed us and the issue that is under debate to be of little electoral interest to the good people of Glasgow North East.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats support the Government's motion and the establishment of the strategy group to guide future national park policy. We also support Sarah Boyack's amendment's addendum: as the minister has made clear, the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national parks have, since their establishment proved their worth. That provides a sound basis on which to move forward and, at the very least, to consider the scope for new national parks, which would rightly be a task for the strategy group. As far as marine and coastal areas are concerned, it makes sense to await the outcome of our deliberations on the Marine (Scotland) Bill.

I find it slightly more difficult to support the Tory amendment. Although it properly identifies the potential efficiency savings that are to be gained from reducing the size of the boards, there is—as I will explain—always a balance to be struck.

I believe that my amendment articulates that trade-off by pointing up the importance of ensuring that local people have a strong voice in managing their own environment. I entirely recognise ministers' efforts to safeguard that voice in progressing the strategic review's recommendations, and I welcome the decision to maintain the number of directly elected members on both boards in the face of a proposed reduction in overall numbers, although I note that that is already required under statute. That said, I hope that the minister will go further and agree that directly elected members, council nominees and ministerial appointees should have equal representation on boards. Such an aim could be achieved while keeping overall board numbers well within the set limits, and would deliver further benefits in local accountability and engagement. As Sarah Boyack has pointed out, council-nominated board members provide a valuable democratic link to the people who live and work in the national parks, but the process of directly electing members to the boards could and should engage the public more fully and require candidates and voters to reflect on what the parks should achieve and how they should be managed.

I accept that a balance needs to be struck and that the strategy group is best placed to weigh up the pros and cons and to make informed recommendations. As a result, with Boyackesque pragmatism, I have, in my amendment, committed the minister only to inviting her strategy group to consider the options. I hope that she will accept it in the spirit in which it is intended. I argue that my amendment would help to reinforce other steps that the minister has taken—and has outlined again today—to safeguard the parks' local dimension. For example, I find it encouraging that the Government has agreed to retain the park authorities as free-standing non-departmental public bodies. There was much debate about that when the previous Administration set up the parks: I think that the model is certainly the best way of developing strong links with local communities. It is imperative that we maintain and enhance that local connection.

The parks showcase our country's remarkable diversity in natural and cultural heritage. As the Scottish Wildlife Trust points out in its briefing, the parks can act as biodiversity hubs, supporting habitat networks and functional and healthy ecosystems, which is very much in keeping with the spirit and letter of the legislation that established the parks.

However, we should not forget that the intention was never to set in aspic the parks and the communities that are within their boundaries. The parks can and must continue to deliver tremendous environmental benefits, but it is important also to emphasise the social and economic opportunities that they present. That point was reflected in the minister's remarks and it is, quite deliberately, a stated priority of both park authorities and one on which they have successfully delivered during their short lives to date. However, I am sure that both authorities accept that more will need to be done if the parks are to continue to meet the needs of their local communities which, unsurprisingly, mirror the needs of communities throughout the country.

Housing, transport, jobs and education are among the day-to-day concerns of those who live in our national parks. To preserve and protect the uniqueness of our parks, care might need to be taken in the way in which those and other needs are met, but I do not see an inherent conflict in that. We would fail those communities and would not meet the objective of the parks if we did not ensure that the legitimate expectations of those who live and work there are met.

I have sought to be as consensual as possible on an issue on which there is welcome cross-party agreement, if not unanimity, but I will strike one discordant note before I conclude. Notwithstanding all that I have said, for many people in the Cairngorms park, debates about board structures might be a little dry and even esoteric, but that is not the case in respect of the plans to upgrade the Beauly to Denny transmission line. The project has aroused strong views and emotions for and against, as well as all points in between. I believe that the upgrade is essential if we are to realise Scotland's renewables potential, and that it will help to unlock significant developments in the north of Scotland. If our true potential as a global powerhouse in renewables is to be met, urgent attention must be given to the need for subsea cables and interconnectors, but the Beauly to Denny upgrade is the most pressing issue and a formal decision on the proposal is now long overdue.

I realise that, whatever the position of the political parties, we all have colleagues who have expressed genuine concerns in representing their constituents' interests. However, that makes it all the more important that a formal decision be made as soon as possible. Ministers have had the reporter's recommendations for about 10 months, and it seems clear from reports that have been leaked to the media that a decision has been made. If that was an attempt to soften up opponents prior to a formal announcement, it has not worked. In the interests of good and transparent government, I urge the minister to impress on her colleagues the need for the decision to be made public. Given the project's national strategic importance, I argue that the decision merits a statement to Parliament.

Our national parks are a phenomenal asset to the country. Having given the concept of a national park to the world through the pioneering efforts of John Muir, we were perhaps a little tardy in practising what our ancestors had happily been preaching for a century or more. Nevertheless, we have made a good start, which should give confidence for the future and create the potential for extending the network of parks. However, as before, we must ensure that we take with us the people and communities who are most directly and immediately affected.

With pleasure, I move amendment S3M-5110.3, to insert at end:

"; celebrates the success of the boards of the National Parks in giving a voice to local people in managing their own environment, and calls for early consideration to be given to increasing the directly elected presence on boards."