Chamber
Plenary, 21 Mar 2007
21 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill: Stage 1
I thank the committee's clerks for their invaluable support and I thank all those who supplied written and oral evidence. In particular, I thank the people of Blair Atholl for their hospitality and the excellent evidence that they gave.
The Environment and Rural Development Committee was made aware that Scottish Natural Heritage recommended that highland and eastern Perthshire communities should be included in the original park boundaries, but the Executive decided not to include them. Mr Swinney is to be commended for seeking to right what communities in highland and eastern Perthshire and some bodies perceive to be a wrong.
The bill focuses on highland and eastern Perthshire; we could not consider possible boundary adjustments in other areas. The committee asked the Executive why parts of highland and eastern Perthshire had been excluded from the national park and we were told that they had been excluded for reasons of governance. In 2002, the Executive thought that the park might be too large to be managed effectively because the park authority was untried.
The committee took evidence in Blair Atholl, during which community representatives and interested organisations gave strong and persuasive views. They said that, geologically, geographically and economically, parts of highland and eastern Perthshire should be included in the park and that Blair Atholl was the historic southern gateway to the Cairngorms. Their evidence left a strong impression on the committee.
However, the committee also had to consider whether the process that the bill proposed was the right one to follow and what impact there could be on the current park, even supposing that we all agreed about the justice of extending the boundary along the line that is outlined in the bill—the rationale behind the boundary was debated. We had to consider whether boundary changes might be more appropriately dealt with in next year's quinquennial review and whether doing so would give the park authority more time to prepare. It was pointed out that the Cairngorms National Park Authority had just completed its draft park plan, which involved many months of consultation of stakeholders. In addition, the authority was finalising its local plan, which is a much more detailed document. Strategies and plans would therefore have to be unpicked and reconsulted on if Mr Swinney's bill were passed. We were told that that would have an adverse psychological effect on the current park stakeholders and that the detailed local plan would have to be redone under the recent new legislation rather than under the old legislation. Others strongly argued that it would be better to unpick plans now than to wait perhaps another 18 months to unpick them. There were also differences of opinion about the perceived financial implications of the bill, which centred mainly on the costs of moving boundary markers.
Highland Council was uneasy about Perth and Kinross Council being able to appoint a member to the Cairngorms National Park Authority, as a result of which Highland Council would lose one member of that authority, which would give it less than half the council representation on the authority, although two thirds of the park would be in the Highland Council area. Some thought that the bill would create problems for the directly elected element of the park authority, although Mr Swinney thinks that ministers could tackle that problem relatively simply were the bill to be enacted.
Mr Swinney and the Executive strongly disagreed about how much consequential legislation would be required in the wake of the bill. Mr Swinney thinks that a minimal amount would be required, but the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development believes that the process might not be any quicker than it would be if we waited for the quinquennial review.
Next year's quinquennial review is the alternative method for addressing the aspirations of highland and eastern Perthshire. Much depended on the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development's evidence about how she saw the remit of that review. Such reviews traditionally focus on governance, and concerns were expressed about whether a quinquennial review could include a boundary review. It was noted that parts of highland and eastern Perthshire were originally excluded from the park because of anxieties about governance. The boundary issue was therefore tied to the governance issue. The deputy minister said that she expected that the quinquennial review would include consideration of the boundaries.
The committee did not agree which was the better process for progressing boundary changes. The arguments were finely balanced. Those who believed that a just case had been made and that loose ends and anomalies could be dealt with easily at a later date favoured the bill. Those who felt that the implications for the park had to be considered and that changing the boundaries of a national park through a member's bill might set an unwelcome precedent preferred that the whole issue be considered in the quinquennial review, especially given the minister's strong indication that the boundaries would be considered in the review. Having debated the merits of both pathways, the committee divided and voted narrowly not to recommend the general principles of the bill.
However, the committee strongly and unanimously recommended that the park boundaries be considered as part of the quinquennial review process. The committee urged the Executive to consider how the boundaries issue might be examined in or alongside the quinquennial review so as to avoid any undue delay, and to consider whether the review should be undertaken by an independent body. The committee also recommended that the review process include wide public consultation, which should not be confined only to the stakeholders and communities that are involved in the current park.
The Environment and Rural Development Committee was made aware that Scottish Natural Heritage recommended that highland and eastern Perthshire communities should be included in the original park boundaries, but the Executive decided not to include them. Mr Swinney is to be commended for seeking to right what communities in highland and eastern Perthshire and some bodies perceive to be a wrong.
The bill focuses on highland and eastern Perthshire; we could not consider possible boundary adjustments in other areas. The committee asked the Executive why parts of highland and eastern Perthshire had been excluded from the national park and we were told that they had been excluded for reasons of governance. In 2002, the Executive thought that the park might be too large to be managed effectively because the park authority was untried.
The committee took evidence in Blair Atholl, during which community representatives and interested organisations gave strong and persuasive views. They said that, geologically, geographically and economically, parts of highland and eastern Perthshire should be included in the park and that Blair Atholl was the historic southern gateway to the Cairngorms. Their evidence left a strong impression on the committee.
However, the committee also had to consider whether the process that the bill proposed was the right one to follow and what impact there could be on the current park, even supposing that we all agreed about the justice of extending the boundary along the line that is outlined in the bill—the rationale behind the boundary was debated. We had to consider whether boundary changes might be more appropriately dealt with in next year's quinquennial review and whether doing so would give the park authority more time to prepare. It was pointed out that the Cairngorms National Park Authority had just completed its draft park plan, which involved many months of consultation of stakeholders. In addition, the authority was finalising its local plan, which is a much more detailed document. Strategies and plans would therefore have to be unpicked and reconsulted on if Mr Swinney's bill were passed. We were told that that would have an adverse psychological effect on the current park stakeholders and that the detailed local plan would have to be redone under the recent new legislation rather than under the old legislation. Others strongly argued that it would be better to unpick plans now than to wait perhaps another 18 months to unpick them. There were also differences of opinion about the perceived financial implications of the bill, which centred mainly on the costs of moving boundary markers.
Highland Council was uneasy about Perth and Kinross Council being able to appoint a member to the Cairngorms National Park Authority, as a result of which Highland Council would lose one member of that authority, which would give it less than half the council representation on the authority, although two thirds of the park would be in the Highland Council area. Some thought that the bill would create problems for the directly elected element of the park authority, although Mr Swinney thinks that ministers could tackle that problem relatively simply were the bill to be enacted.
Mr Swinney and the Executive strongly disagreed about how much consequential legislation would be required in the wake of the bill. Mr Swinney thinks that a minimal amount would be required, but the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development believes that the process might not be any quicker than it would be if we waited for the quinquennial review.
Next year's quinquennial review is the alternative method for addressing the aspirations of highland and eastern Perthshire. Much depended on the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development's evidence about how she saw the remit of that review. Such reviews traditionally focus on governance, and concerns were expressed about whether a quinquennial review could include a boundary review. It was noted that parts of highland and eastern Perthshire were originally excluded from the park because of anxieties about governance. The boundary issue was therefore tied to the governance issue. The deputy minister said that she expected that the quinquennial review would include consideration of the boundaries.
The committee did not agree which was the better process for progressing boundary changes. The arguments were finely balanced. Those who believed that a just case had been made and that loose ends and anomalies could be dealt with easily at a later date favoured the bill. Those who felt that the implications for the park had to be considered and that changing the boundaries of a national park through a member's bill might set an unwelcome precedent preferred that the whole issue be considered in the quinquennial review, especially given the minister's strong indication that the boundaries would be considered in the review. Having debated the merits of both pathways, the committee divided and voted narrowly not to recommend the general principles of the bill.
However, the committee strongly and unanimously recommended that the park boundaries be considered as part of the quinquennial review process. The committee urged the Executive to consider how the boundaries issue might be examined in or alongside the quinquennial review so as to avoid any undue delay, and to consider whether the review should be undertaken by an independent body. The committee also recommended that the review process include wide public consultation, which should not be confined only to the stakeholders and communities that are involved in the current park.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5758, in the name of John Swinney, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Cairngorms...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the Environment and Rural Development Committee for the consideration that it has given the bill and for hosting an evidence session in my constituen...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
I am one of the members to whom John Swinney referred. I felt that the boundaries should not have excluded highland Perthshire and that to do so was wrong. I...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I understand the dilemma that faces members when they deal with designation orders that are not well defined or well argued for, as with the order for the Ca...
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con):
Con
As the convener of the Rural Development Committee in those days, I put it on record that although the committee was in a huge dilemma, as Mike Rumbles said,...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I am grateful to Mr Fergusson for that remark and for the way in which he has pursued the issue assiduously and supported efforts to remedy the situation ove...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
Would Mr Swinney, as the SNP's finance spokesman, like to reflect on the value for money of the committee's decision? Parliament has spent a lot of time and ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Mr Fraser makes a reasonable point. Not only will the consultation have to be done again, but if we agree to extend the boundaries, that might involve reloca...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I thank the committee's clerks for their invaluable support and I thank all those who supplied written and oral evidence. In particular, I thank the people o...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
Since giving evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, I have had exchanges with the committee and with John Swinney on the detail of his ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Will the minister give way?
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No. I am in my first minute, so I ask John Swinney to let me get going.In my evidence to the committee, I was absolutely clear about three things. First, I w...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
The minister has talked about affordable housing and the need to guarantee environmental protection for all the areas in the Cairngorms national park, which ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I am happy to address that full on. This morning, I met the chair of the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce—which, incidentally, did not exist when we started di...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
As the minister will be aware, I represent West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, which is on the other side of the boundary from the area that John Swinney repr...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Let me be absolutely clear: as part of its considerations, evidence was presented to the Environment and Rural Development Committee specifically on business...
Richard Lochhead (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
I begin by congratulating John Swinney, the local constituency member, for doggedly pursuing the campaign since 2003. I also pay tribute to his campaigning c...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
As a point of accuracy, the serious concerns that are being raised are about changing the boundaries at this time. That is the key issue about which there ar...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I am pointing out to the minister the extent to which representations are being made, given that two of the constituency members who have spoken in the debat...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
John Swinney's member's bill is about righting a wrong. In that, it is fairly unusual. In my experience, much of the legislation that is passed by the Parlia...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
Does Ted Brocklebank understand that someone who arrived from planet Mars might wonder whether he is debating the merits of Nora Radcliffe or of the bill?
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
I am not sure what that intervention meant, but it might have made more sense if Nora Radcliffe or the other members whom I have mentioned were here to respo...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
Excuse me. The Lib Dems are not hell-bent on kicking out John Swinney's bill. I shall certainly support it at decision time.
Mr Brocklebank:
Con
I thank Mr Rumbles for keeping me right, but I am still not sure that the minister has given an adequate answer as to why the Executive as a whole appears to...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
I am an assiduous watcher of "Yes, Minister" DVDs. Unfortunately, today I am in the position of the Sir Humphrey brigade, who often say, "Yes, of course I su...
Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green):
Green
I, too, remember the excellent work of the Rural Development Committee in the first session of the Scottish Parliament. At the time, I was not a member of th...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
A substantial part of the Cairngorms national park lies in my constituency and in that of Mike Rumbles. From the south at Dalwhinnie to the north at Cromdale...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
It would be helpful if I clarified two points. First, the challenge is not the number of people in settlements—although I was concerned about their being exc...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I do not accept that that work would in any way be disrupted. Why should it? It would simply be supplemented in respect of an area with very few people and o...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I start by declaring an interest, as I did during the committee's consideration of the bill. I am a former member of the Cairngorms working party and was br...