Subordinate Legislation Committee, 25 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 25, 2000

Official Report 107KB pdf

---

National Parks (Scotland) Bill

Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in 2000. We have received apologies from David Mundell.

The first item on the agenda is the delegated powers scrutiny of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, on which we have had the benefit of legal briefing in our informal session. Some points arise, particularly in response to sections 2 to 4, on how national parks will be designated in due course.

I have two points, which I think fall within the remit of this committee. Both relate to the designatory powers under section 5 of the bill.

First, section 5 should be considered with section 2, which sets out the procedures on the reports that may require to be made on national park proposals. Section 2(9) states:

"The Scottish Ministers must publish a report made to them under this section."

Would it be helpful if there were also a requirement that the report be laid before Parliament?

My second point is on section 5(3)(a), which provides for a minimum period of six weeks between the publication of a report made under section 2 and the laying of a draft designation order by the Executive under section 5. It appears to me that six weeks is a short period, during which the communities in any area to be designated as a national park would have to consider the terms of the report. From the submissions that have been made by the public on the bill, there are already grounds to believe that such matters will be controversial. So far as setting the boundaries of a national park is concerned, the inclusion, or exclusion, of certain areas is one of the most controversial aspects of the bill.

I am aware that many people in the Cairngorm area did not receive the draft bill and consultation document until well into the consultation period, which was much longer than six weeks. There was also a feeling within my constituency that it takes a while to crank up the consultation procedure, setting up local meetings, advertising them in the local paper and ensuring that people feel that they are being consulted, that their views are of value and that they have an opportunity to participate in local meetings. One must also consider matters in the light of advice that people receive at such meetings.

I am sorry to be so long-winded on our first day back, convener, but, all in all, I would prefer a period of six months rather than one of six weeks, given that Scotland has waited about 50 years for the establishment of national parks. Within my constituency, the feeling is, "Let's get it right. Let's not rush it through". A period of six months would allow ample opportunity for proper consultation.

I agree in principle with Fergus Ewing that six weeks is not long enough, particularly if there is a holiday period during that time. Although I am not sure about a period of six months, I will go along with the rest of the committee if members think that such a period is appropriate. As Fergus Ewing said, we have waited for some time for national parks, so we should get right whom we consult and how we consult them.

I agree. Community councils in rural areas do not always meet every fortnight, or anything like so regularly, as it is not that kind of set-up. An extension to the period of six weeks is certainly required. Six months is a starting point and should be considered, but it seems sensible to have a period of longer than six weeks.

Shall we approach the Executive on those points? We want all papers to be laid, so that everyone is aware of the full report, and the six-week period must be extended. Six months may be too long, on the basis that this is a democracy and perhaps an elected Government has the right to try to get its legislation through. However, the six-week period is too short and we believe that it must be extended to allow for representations and for all interested bodies to meet.

We discussed other matters in relation to the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. I believe that Fergus Ewing wanted some changes to section 28 to be considered.

It would be useful to have some clarification as to what exactly the Executive envisages by its reference in section 28(4) to "modifications" in applying sections 2 to 6.

Certainly.

We also discussed section 29. Trish, do you wish to comment?

Section 29 needs to be tidied up, as its provisions are very wide.

We appreciate that maritime matters may be more complicated because of international and European issues but, as things stand, section 29 appears to give almost unfettered discretion as to what the Executive could proceed with.

The provisions seem to be as opaque as the sea itself. It is surprising that there is no specific reference to those who would require to be consulted in respect of the designation of a marine area as a national park, notably all those who earn their livelihood from any area that would be subject to a proposal to designate, and fishermen in particular.

We also seek clarification on section 32, which appears to duplicate the provisions in section 31.

It is interesting that, in the memorandum, there is an explanation by the Executive of the various sections that contain delegated powers, but I can see no reference to section 32. That strengthens the argument for going back to the Executive to seek such an explanation of section 32(2).

We will seek clarification on that.