Rural Affairs Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 2, 2000

Official Report 225KB pdf

---

National Parks (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

I apologise to our witnesses for the slight delay at the start of today's meeting. We occasionally find ourselves dealing with incidents that creep up on us.

I welcome Councillor Ian Miller, who is the spokesman on planning matters for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and Tim Stone, who is the head of policy development on national parks for COSLA. I also welcome Mr Frank Bracewell, from Drymen community council, and Murdoch Cameron, from Balloch and Haldane community council. They are here to deal with issues that relate specifically to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area. From the Cairngorms area, we welcome Mrs Sheena Slimon, from Laggan community association, who is here to represent the Cairngorms Partnership community councils group. Finally, we welcome Mr Douglas Murray, who comes from Inveresk community council and is the secretary of the Association of Scottish Community Councils.

Each of our representative groups will have the opportunity to say a few words before answering questions. We will address each group in turn, but, if you feel strongly that you would like to comment on somebody else's answer, you can do so if you give me an indication. I invite Councillor Miller to say a few words on behalf of COSLA, after which we will ask questions.

Thank you, convener. You have our written response to your letter of last month. In that paper, our comments were prefaced by the statement that COSLA had no formal position at that point. Those comments were endorsed unanimously by the meeting of COSLA leaders on 28 April. COSLA broadly welcomes the various amendments that have been made to the bill, and is happy that you have taken on board some of our comments. We feel that that has improved the bill.

The paper that we submitted focuses on the points on which you asked for more detailed consideration. We gave evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which dealt more with the nitty-gritty of the bill. We have tried to take a more overarching view of the position in our presentation to the Rural Affairs Committee. I shall briefly run through the points that we make in our submission.

As far as COSLA is concerned, part of the deal is that the Government picks up the costs for the national park authority. We are anxious to ensure that no additional burdens are placed on local government. Although we welcome the flexibility that allows councils to nominate people who are not councillors for membership of the national park authority, we would be surprised if councils did anything other than nominate their own members for that body.

We welcome the increased emphasis on the involvement of community councils and local interest groups, but we feel strongly that it does not go far enough. We need to write the local people's position into the bill. We have proposed an additional subparagraph to paragraph 5(2) of schedule 1, which would read: "At least 20 per cent of the total Park authority membership from persons who are directly involved in local community matters in the Park area." In effect, four members of the park authority committee should be drawn from that group.

We are concerned that, at present, paragraph 5 subparagraph (2)(b) of schedule 1 gives undue weight to narrow special interest groups. The national park is already required to set up consultation bodies that involve such categories. That is sufficient input for those groups, and that additional subparagraph should be deleted. There is a further issue about direct elections for local members. There are many ways in which to consult communities without the need for direct elections to the posts. We are quite relaxed about those posts being nominations by the minister.

We want an additional section to provide that councillor members of the national park authorities shall hold office only from the time of appointment to the time that they cease to be a member of the nominating council. That is a practical point; there needs to be some correlation between elections to councils and membership of the park authorities. The suggested section would be a practical way to ensure that any council elections that were held midway through the term of the park authority could be dealt with effectively.

Another point is planning responsibility, which we have not dealt with directly in our response. We are happy that that has not yet been specified in the bill. Each area has its own different conditions and solutions.

Thank you for allowing us to make our presentation.

Thank you. We will move to questions.

I am keen to explore the idea of having 20 per cent local representation on all the national park authorities. The Executive's response to the consultation makes it clear that that was the biggest issue: of the 190 respondents who mentioned it, 122 favoured direct local representation on the boards—either through election or nomination from community councils.

You said that you were quite relaxed about not having direct elections to the board, but you also mentioned the importance of co-ordinating with local authority elections. I was not quite clear whether you thought that it would be a good idea to have local elections for the board. Am I on the right track?

I was dealing with those as two separate issues. The point about having 20 per cent representation from local people is that 50 per cent local council representation is already built in; that takes care of the need for local representation.

The issue of councillors ceasing to be members of the national park authority if they cease to be councillors is separate from that of local representation. We want simply to ensure that those people who were nominated by councils continue to have the confidence of the council. Every three years, technically, councillors cease to be councillors on election day. The purpose of our amendment would be to confirm that all councillors would cease to be members of the national park authority on election day. After election day, if those councillors were re-elected, it would be up to the new council to decide whether to re-nominate them for the national park authority. The new council would be able to nominate councillors in whom it had confidence, rather than those in whom the previous administration had confidence.

Local representation is important, and 20 per cent seems to be a common theme. Later on, we will talk about Mrs Sheena Slimon's submission, which also mentions 20 per cent representation from the local community.

Let us take an example from Aberdeenshire, where I live. Councillors from Fraserburgh and Peterhead might be appointed to the Cairngorms authority; that would not be appropriate, yet it would be allowed under the proposed legislation. What do you think about that?

It is appropriate to allow for that possibility.

Why?

If the council felt that the individual from Fraserburgh had particular expertise that would be valuable to the park—perhaps they were convener of the council's transport committee and transport was an important aspect of the national park plan—we would not want that councillor to be excluded. Having said that, we anticipate that, by and large, councils will choose local members or those from the immediately surrounding area to serve on the authority—where those councillors have the relevant expertise.

However, there is no guarantee of that.

That is correct, but we think that it is appropriate that there is no guarantee. Do you want me to elaborate on the 20 per cent issue?

Yes; please do.

We do not think that there is any need to directly elect the 20 per cent of the members of the park authorities who would be community representatives. We do not see a need for direct appointment by the council of the councillor representatives, although we welcome the reassurance that the council will nominate and the minister will appoint, unless there is an outstandingly good reason not to do so.

We have difficulty with the direct election of local representatives because we are not sure how that could be done effectively without a strong community council basis in the national park area. Furthermore, if we introduce elected representatives on a community basis what is their representation? Would they represent the whole national park area or a part of it? That would introduce conflicts and ambiguities into the role of a representative on the national park authority.

You propose only four local representatives from the 20 members of the park authority. The other 16 places would be for specialist areas and the four would represent direct local interest, because of the importance of connecting local people with the national parks. In many areas of the Highlands and Islands, many councillors have been elected unopposed for years, because the local community does not have the opportunity to alter the democratic deficit. Does COSLA recognise that there is a need to redress that democratic deficit through the direct involvement of the local community in the management of the park authorities?

We do not see it that way. The fact that there may be areas of Scotland where, at the moment, there are councillors who are not elected because there is democratic deficit can be dealt with by local communities at council elections.

We anticipate that a significant number of the 50 per cent of councillors will be local representatives. We also anticipate that, even if the councillors are not local representatives, a mechanism will ensure that the local councillors who are from the national park area, the community councils and other local interest groups will be able to influence the national park authority.

You mention that there will be 20 per cent from the community but you are still talking about having 50 per cent from the council. Could you clarify the percentages?

On a basis of 20 members, there would be 10 councillors nominated from the councils in the park area and 10 people directly appointed by the minister, of whom four would be activists from within the community.

So you are taking the 20 per cent from the ministerial accumulation?

Yes.

My point was similar. I notice that you are not including councillors among the people who are directly involved in local community matters. Might not that approach unbalance the situation? The board will be dominated by local councillors and local activists, along with representatives of local landowners or recreational interests. There will not be a lot of space left for people appointed by the minister who have a national perspective. The park would be dominated by the local authorities.

It would be dominated by local interests, not local authority interests. We think that that would be appropriate. In the scenario that we are talking about, some of the 10 local councillors could be from outwith the immediate park area. There would be a minimum of four community-based representatives and a maximum of six national representatives.

But among those six would be people who represent environmental or recreational interests.

We do not see it quite that way. We suggest that the section in the bill as introduced, which referred to the special interest groups, should be dropped. We do not think that it would be appropriate for narrow interest groups to be on the national park authority. It would be better to have people who look at the national park as a whole. Narrow specialist interests can be brought in through advisory groups and consultative processes. There should be a national input, but a local focus.

Do you believe that an organisation half of whose members are local councillors would represent the national interest?

Yes, given what the national park is expected to do. The national park has to balance the national interest with the local interest. We think that, through the mechanisms of the consultative process and the approval of the minister, the input of a leavening of national experts along with councillors—who will not necessarily all represent the national park area—will create that balance. There is a strong imperative in the bill to ensure that, if there is a conflict to do with the primary purpose of the national park, which is to serve the environmental and cultural interests, priority is given to—

Others, such as the local enterprise companies, have argued that the LECs should be represented on the authority. By the time that everybody has got their oar in, the authority could be rather cramped.

The important point is that there is a balance to be struck. COSLA has had a debate about having a representation from local authorities of 50 per cent plus one. We are broadly agreed that that will not be the case, although one authority is strongly in favour of it. We have reached an agreement that our present proposal is the most balanced way to move forward. Incidentally, I am sure that the councillors who are appointed to the national park authority would be able to take the broader view and not consider only their local interest.

I want to get this clear. You are saying that the councillors would not necessarily represent wards in the national park?

They would not necessarily do so.

You seem determined that the local council nominees would be elected members, but there is a chance that they might not be. For instance, you might nominate non-councillors. How could the local authorities best choose people to nominate? How would they do that, in a practical sense?

We anticipate that the local authorities would nominate councillors for the foreseeable future. It is right that the bill enables the choosing of non-councillors, but we think that, at least until the situation settles down and we can see how things are operating, the nominees are likely to be councillors. The councillors who will be nominated will be identified by considering the local interest and the overlap of activities between the national park and the council.

How would the non-councillors be selected?

As I said, we do not anticipate that happening soon. It will happen after the councils have worked with advisory groups and identified people in the community who would be useful members of the national park authority.

Let us pretend for a moment that two of the 10 nominees were to be non-councillors. How would they be identified? How would you ensure that they were representative of the area? Would you just tap someone on the shoulder and anoint them?

The process would build up over time. The council would identify people who were active in the area and represented interests that the council wanted to be represented on the authority.

I will rephrase the question. Do you think that it is possible for local authorities to nominate in a transparent manner non-councillors who are representative of the areas?

There is a precedent for the process. Many local authorities, my own included, appoint non-councillors to committees such as education committees. Such people are selected because of their interest and good works in the relevant area. The same thing would apply to national parks. It is a case of horses for courses: we have to pick the people that are best suited for the job. Councils are capable of doing that.

If the wording of the bill were not changed, would you consider initially selecting people from the community rather than councils for the first national park authority?

The soundings that we took from councillors suggest that, in the first instance, councils are likely to appoint councillors to the national park authority. We expect that the minister or ministers will ensure that there is local community representation. In other words, the council will say that councillors are the local community representatives. In the people that we will put forward, we will seek a balance between local people and people that we decide are appropriate for the park.

Would not community council members have the same local ties as councillors?

A national park body will have certain functions. Depending on the secondary legislation, it may or may not take over certain functions that councils have at the moment. Councils will be interested in their relationships with national park bodies. Until those bodies are up and running and relationships have been established, councils will be keen to ensure that councillors are involved, to ensure that there is a good interchange of understanding between the council and the national park body. If the community representative on the national park body is not also on the council, gaps could emerge in the relationship between the two. Remember that the council will still be responsible for education, social work and loads of other functions in the park area, so it is important that the relationship is good. There must be a clear understanding of what are park body functions and what are council functions.

Each national park authority will be different, and it is important that they should be allowed to evolve their own processes. As I said, I would be surprised if councils that were offered 50 per cent representation did not take that up. For them not to do so would be too much to hope for.

What are COSLA's views on a certain number of members being directly elected to the national park authority?

We oppose direct elections, as is clear from our submission.

Are you prepared to comment any further?

Are you talking about non-councillor representatives?

Yes.

We say that we are opposed, but this issue did not come up one way or the other during our consultation process. In their responses, councils noted that the minister was proposing to appoint directly the other half of the authority, and they were happy with that.

A moment ago, the idea of using community councils to help to determine the nature of representation was mentioned. Do you see a significant role for community councils in the appointment of representatives to the national park authority?

Do you mean directly?

Will the community councils have some influence when you are appointing non-councillors?

Councillors?

Non-councillors.

The bill indicates that the minister is required to consult with community councils on the appointment of members. We think that it is entirely appropriate that community councils, where there are community councils operating, should be consulted. I do not know what "consult" means in the bill. It might mean that the community council is asked to put forward names for the minister to consider through the normal procedures.

Our view is that at least 20 per cent of the representatives should be people who are active in the community, but we have avoided using the term community council, because there are not always community councils operating. To get that 20 per cent, we would certainly expect the minister to consult people who are active in the community on who would be appropriate. However, we have not gone on to the next step and said that there should be direct nomination.

Direct elections were the biggest single issue during the Executive's consultation exercise. Of those who responded, 20 per cent said that they wanted direct elections, and a further 44.2 per cent said that they were concerned at the lack of local representation on the boards. Correct me if I am wrong, but from your evidence today, it seems that there is no guarantee, with the wording of the legislation as it is at the moment, of having 20 per cent representation even through having local councillors on the board.

As you have said, there is nothing to prevent councillors appointing people who do not live and work in the local community. I represent West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and responses to the consultation exercise there, as well as representations that I have received, show that, especially in the Cairngorms, there is a real concern that we must anchor local representation into the board. I think that 20 per cent is a perfectly reasonable figure.

Had you given a commitment that you would ensure that 20 per cent of local councillors would live or work in the local community, I would have been more convinced, but there is no such guarantee. There is no guarantee that local connection will be anchored into the bill. Am I right in my summary of what you have said?

You are right to say that, as the bill is currently drafted, there is no guarantee that the 50 per cent who are council nominees will come from the local area. In theory, they could all come from outwith the local area, but I would be astounded if that turned out to be the case. It would, of course, be up to the individual council, but I would expect that most of the people who were put forward would be either from the area or from the immediately surrounding area.

But there is no guarantee of that.

There is no guarantee in the bill, and we do not think that it would be appropriate to constrain the council nominations.

So you would not want a guarantee?

No, those decisions should be left to the judgment of the councils.

In much of your evidence, you have talked about the Executive's having to consult the local community and involve community councils when making appointments. However, you do not seem to think that councils should do that. You expect the Executive to behave in one way but councils to behave in another, without involving the local communities.

No, I would not say that. Councils are expected to consult their communities regularly. Councils are engaged in community planning processes, decentralisation processes and all sorts of processes that involve consultation with the community. The way in which an individual council decides on which councillors it appoints to the national park bodies should be left to the council, but councils are, in any event, expected to consult fully with their communities. It would be a strange council that did not take account of local views. At the moment, there is no proposed national park that will be entirely within the boundary of one council. It is not only the people who live in the national park area but those who live outside it who may have an interest in the park.

I know that there is no guarantee, but there is some assurance in the amendments to the bill that have been put forward already. For example, there is the assurance that that the minister should ensure that people with particular experience and knowledge are appointed. On community involvement, there is the assurance that people who live, work and carry on business in the park, together with community councils, are explicitly required to be included. So there are assurances, although I would be the first to accept that they are not guarantees.

I have listened to your presentation and I remain to be convinced that the methodology of selecting the members of the representative board will be acceptable in the communities that the national parks will cover. There are large numbers of interested bodies within the boundaries of national parks, and I am sure that they will be anxious that their representation is substantial and significant.

I was distressed to hear you suggest that members who are elected to national park authorities from local authorities need not live in the area of the national park, and possibly would be nominated to serve on the authority simply because they have a particular interest or expertise. I suggest that such interest and expertise is already represented within the boundaries of national parks, and therefore the nominations to the national park authority should be directed towards those individuals and groups rather than to people who are living, and a body that is operating, outwith the boundary of the national park.

I am not sure if we want to see a residential requirement in the bill. As I said earlier, there are safeguards. We are looking for people who have particular experience and knowledge of the issues. The fact that someone does not represent an area within a national park area should not be an impediment. You raised the issue of special interest groups. I think that we have already dealt with them. We are concerned that some, although not all, special interest groups have a narrow view of the issues that they are dealing with. We would like to feel that the national park body would to take a broader view of all the issues.

May I elaborate on that? National park areas will cover the constituencies of elected members of local authorities. If those elected members are not on the national park body, they will be deeply interest in what the council representatives on the national park body do. I fully expect councils to make arrangements to ensure that members who are on the national park body liaise with members who are not.

As soon as you address any matters of policy formulation, whether that is the local plan if planning powers are transferred, or whatever, you are immediately into the issues of local consultation processes and the advisory groups that the national park authority can set up. The more that there are elected representatives who are not on the board, the more that there will be pressure to make sure that those advisory groups and consultative groups are effective and strong. There are many ways of ensuring that your voice is heard other than being on a national park body.

Different councils do their local plans differently. There are areas where the plans are approved by the full council or by the planning committee. Conceivably, only a small number of members for the area covered by the local plan will be on the approving body for the plan—or there may even be none—but they will have been fully consulted about the plan. There is more than one way to ensure that local representation is done properly.

Yes, but do you agree that given the huge piece of legislation that is going to govern the national parks, for the harmony and success of the parks you have to have co-operation within the national park boundary? Unless that is secured at the outset, no matter how you try to represent members on the park authority, the national park scheme will not be as successful as we dearly hope it will be.

I fully endorse your comments. Everyone needs to be taken on board. It is a difficult balancing act. Unfortunately, you cannot involve everyone. The proposals that we are putting forward, which were endorsed by a full meeting of COSLA, try to strike a balance.

I am keen to move on and include the community representatives who are here, but I see that members wish to ask questions, so we will take a couple of short questions, then we will bring in the next group of witnesses.

You mentioned advisory groups being the mechanism for involving other interest groups and organisations. Would you expand on what you see as the role for the advisory group vis-à-vis the national park authority, and how many of those groups you think would be appropriate, given that the legislation now allows for more than one?

The answer to the question of how many groups there should be is whatever the national park authority thinks is appropriate. I would expect authorities to respond to interest groups and pressure groups and to make judgments about whether advisory groups are appropriate. The legislation leaves the issue open-ended, and that is right.

The bill states that there should be a majority of national park authority members on sub-groups or advisory groups. So there are two methods of getting views across, and that is right. Those mechanisms should and would be used by a national park authority to make sure that it is picking up local representations.

You do not see any potential for the main body to be overwhelmed by all its sub-groups and advisory groups and the different memberships thereof?

The main body is the one that determines what sub-groups it will set up.

Would you like to comment on the fairly non-specific outline of the advisory groups' remit? Should that have been tightened up, or is it okay to leave it fairly loose?

Our view is that those issues should be left for the bodies themselves to resolve. As I said earlier, there has to be an evolving process. Things have to be allowed to be tailored to the specific needs of national parks. It would be wrong to be too prescriptive at this stage and to specify what sub-groups and consultative bodies there should be. Each authority will be different and have different interests. For example, there are obvious differences between the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond. They are vastly different areas with different problems and different local issues. The park authorities have to be allowed to evolve their own solutions to problems.

We are talking about primary legislation. The bill allows the minister to specify in secondary legislation any advisory groups that it is thought appropriate should be set up. Our view is that the primary legislation should be as enabling as possible.

Subparagraph 5(3) of schedule 1 states:

"A local authority must not nominate a person for appointment as a nominated member unless the person appears to the authority to have knowledge or experience relevant to the functions of the National Park authority or the National Park."

Given that you have already stated that councils would consider appointing people who are not local members, what criteria would you use to ensure that they have the knowledge or relevant experience of the functions of the national park?

The criteria are fairly well specified in the bill. It would be incumbent on councils to ensure that the criteria are applied. An element of trust has to be placed in local authorities. Of course, the minister has the final say on this issue.

What type of experience would it be appropriate for a local authority representative to have if they were not local?

That is an interesting question. We discussed that point. A broad spectrum should be applied. Someone may have a particular interest in transport, as Tim Stone said. That may not be a major issue in each national park, but it could be an issue in one national park. It is wrong to be too specific at this stage. As Tim Stone said, there will be more detail in the secondary legislation that sets up a national park. At the moment we should concentrate on the broader issues and leave the nitty-gritty to the secondary legislation.

I suspect that knowledge and experience of how to involve the community in decisions effectively would be relevant to many national parks. That is not a functionally specific area, but some people are better at it than others. There are all sorts of areas that a member might be chosen to deal with.

I am keen to move on to the community representatives who are here. As I said earlier, we have with us Frank Bracewell and Murdoch Cameron, who come from the area that will be covered by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. We also have Mrs Sheena Slimon and Douglas Murray, who come from the area that is likely to be covered by the Cairngorms national park. I propose to give one representative of each area the opportunity to say a few words. I ask Frank Bracewell to address us first.

I will circulate a handout to members. Thank you for inviting us here today. We did not know until Sunday that we were invited, so this is rather a scratch production. I did not know anything about the discourse that has been taking place between Tim Stone, Ian Miller and the convener.

As I believed that the meeting was intended to provide the committee with an idea of what the community councils of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area think, I have chosen to speak about the two subjects about which the association of community councils of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park area feels most strongly: membership of the park authority and planning powers. I realise that the committee is not dealing with planning powers, so forgive me for raising that issue, but I was trying to crystallise the main concerns of community councils. At least we were right in identifying membership as a major issue.

The association constituted itself at the end of 1998 and is composed of community councils located in and around the area proposed for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park area. It is a free association—any community council can join. The councils that joined were those that attended consultation meetings to consider the proposals. There are currently 21 members. Three are from the Argyll and Bute Council area, five are from the West Dunbartonshire Council area and 20 are from the Stirling Council area.

The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs interim committee generously offered three places on the committee to community council representatives, one from each of the local authority areas. Murdoch Cameron, who is sitting on my right, is the representative of the West Dunbartonshire community councils, and I am the representative of the Stirling community councils. Murdoch comes from the Balloch community council and I come from the Drymen community council. Murdoch is the chairman of his community council. I used to be the chairman of mine, but I stepped down as I found being chairman and planning correspondent too onerous.

The association warmly supports the introduction of national parks, especially that proposed for our area. We are anxious that, after such a long wait, the designation should be as effective as possible and that Scotland's national park system should be an acceptable member of the international family of protected areas of exceptionally high value, taking full advantage of best practice. Two main areas of concern remain in the second draft of the bill: membership of the park authority and the planning function.

We welcome the proposed national commitment to sustainable conservation, but consider it essential that the national park should have full local support. To achieve that, we think it necessary that there should be a more direct and recognisable involvement with the local community—the people who live in the area—than is likely to be provided by the presence on the authority of elected members of the local authorities.

After more than 40 years of national parks in England and Wales, the Government accepted the need for greater accountability and sensitivity to the legitimate needs of local communities. In the Environment Act 1995, it reduced the local authority representation on national park authorities from two thirds to 50 per cent plus one. In the place of those representatives, the act provides for a specific quota of representatives from parish councils which, by means of a complex formula, amounts to about 20 per cent of the membership. It is amazing that today everyone is quoting the figure of 20 per cent.

The new constitution took into account the fact that in the English and Welsh national parks, the state provides 75 per cent of the funding, whereas the local authorities are required by precept to provide the remaining 25 per cent. The association of community councils of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park area strongly supports the Executive's decision to provide 100 per cent of the funding for national parks, but suggests that that the different funding arrangement provides the opportunity for a more logical and effective division of membership.

The association proposes, first, that one third of members should be Scottish ministers' appointees, of the highest calibre, having interests and expertise in the full range of national park responsibilities and having the primary role of upholding the national interest in the parks. Although it is desirable that some of those members should live in the park area, that should not be a prerequisite. Secondly, the association proposes that one third of members should be from local authorities. Wherever possible, those members should be resident within the park area. Thirdly, the association proposes that one third of members should be local residents, elected perhaps by an electoral college of community councils.

A further consequence of such a change would be to open up the issue of leadership of the park authority. In England and Wales, the elected chairman of a national park authority has traditionally been a member from the dominant group of local authority representatives. The association is in favour of the chairman being appointed by Scottish ministers, but a widening of the membership to one third ministerial appointees, one third local authority representatives and one third community representatives would be likely to widen the available choice of chairman, which would be welcome.

The association believes that it is essential that national park authorities should be planning authorities, with joint responsibility for structure plans, but with full responsibility for local plans and development control, including the handling of applications. The greatest threat to the conservation of Scotland's environment comes from developments that are subject to planning control. In his "Highland Landscape" survey of 1961, W H Murray wrote:

"The ugliness that has grown up in so many of our towns arrived there insidiously, creeping in by degree through lack of overall direction, foresight or control. The same situation is arising in the Scottish Highlands. The outstanding natural beauty of the Highland scene, which is one of the nation's greatest assets, has been haphazardly expended and no account kept."

After 40 years of mixed responsibility, the Environment Act 1995 made the English and Welsh national parks the fully effective planning authorities. The association believes that section 9 of the bill should be amended to delete paragraphs (1)(b) and (1)(c), which would allow for a situation in which the park authority was not the planning authority.

I apologise for my brevity.

Thank you. I now ask either Douglas Murray or Sheena Slimon to address us. We will take questions for both groups together.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I will begin by explaining how the community council group for the Caingorms Partnership was elected. Each community council in the area was asked to nominate someone who they thought would be a suitable person to represent them, after which the community council forums were asked to vote on the nominations. We have five members from Badenoch and Strathspey, one from Donside, one from Glenlivet and Tomintoul, two from Deeside, one from the Angus glens and one from Perthshire. The community council group wants to make clear that we feel that local communities should have at least 20 per cent of the seats on the national park authority.

A national park in the Cairngorms has been discussed for many years. Scottish Natural Heritage recognises that a national park that excludes the local community from its management and government will not thrive. Community councillors work on a voluntary basis, are non-political and are not bound by any financial commitments or paymasters, as local authorities and other agencies may be. We will judge any issue or project according to whether it will be of benefit either to the community or to the environment.

We who live and work in the area are dependent on the environment for our livelihood—in forestry, agriculture and tourism. In no way would we kill the golden goose. We are just as keen as the conservationists and environmentalists to keep our area special. We also want our communities to develop. Housing, jobs and transport are just as important to the community council as they are to local authority councillors.

The Cairngorms community council group is looking at support mechanisms for community councils to ensure that they can take a full and active part in the forthcoming consultations on the national park. For the past year, the community council group has worked on issues concerning the Cairngorms Partnership area. We have had no problems with looking at broad issues, which negates the view of Ms Boyack and of COSLA that our interests would be too local for a park authority.

The community at large is apprehensive—perhaps even doubtful—about a national park. Last year, we were given a blank sheet of paper to write up our ideal park. Community representation was one of the main demands. If the community view from the local consultation is ignored, it will be difficult to convince the communities of the worth of future consultations, which will surely be to the detriment of our national park.

National parks are a misnomer. They are not owned by the nation and they are not parks. They are places where people live and work. I see no reason why the national park authority cannot be made up of people who live and work in the area. In the Cairngorms area, we have national and international specialists in all spheres. It would be an insult to the communities not to be allowed to be represented on the park authority.

The local authority witnesses have confirmed that there is no guarantee that, as the bill stands, the local community would be directly represented. The consultation exercise has shown us—and your evidence confirms—the importance of anchoring local support for the national parks. However, there is still the question of how best to guarantee at least 20 per cent representation of local communities. I would be interested to hear how you got your nominations for the Association of Scottish Community Councils and about the process that you went through.

If we were to go down the road of direct elections, what would the reaction of community council representatives be if the bill allowed community councils to organise the ballot for four representatives so that everybody on the electoral register in the area could vote? If community councils ran the election, there would be a connection between the community and the election process. If we do not go down the road of direct elections, what would be the mechanism for getting four representatives of community councils on the board?

Direct elections would not be a problem. We would have to ensure that there was a fair distribution of councillors around the area. That would have to be written in to the election process somehow.

Elections run by Stirling Council do a good job in helping to democratise the community council level. Even at that level, we vote by postal voting. The lowest level of voting was around 60 per cent—an amazing turnout for a community council election. Stirling Council has shown that a properly organised postal vote brings back a higher level of representation.

I speak now from a personal point of view, because the association has not gone into the matter far enough to answer your question. The problem with conducting a community council election on a one-person-one-vote basis is that it gives strong weighting to those little centres of population that, in an area that is likely to be a national park, will stick out like a sore thumb. Generally, the population level in such areas is very low.

Although we have debated the issue of electing that section of the board—and we want 33 per cent rather than 20 per cent representation—we think that an election would not result in a fair distribution. We are more attracted by the idea of a nomination coming from the community councils, which are themselves democratically elected. They could vote among themselves to appoint a nominee for the park authority. That is how Murdoch Cameron and I were appointed to the Association of Scottish Community Councils. The interim committee asked the community councils to come up with three people from the three local authority areas. That procedure may be flawed—Murdoch and I got the jobs, after all—but it avoids disparities.

We do not know where the boundaries of the national park will be. If Callander is within the park boundary—and it will fight like mad to be inside it—well over a third of the population of the park area will be in that one community. A democratic election for a body of community councils is rather difficult. I am attracted by the idea of an electoral college, with the community councils being responsible for handling matters democratically. It is important that the process be democratic. We want that tier of representatives to have a real status. Some community councils have difficulty getting their quorum going, and some just die away through lack of support. Election is good; representatives must be on the park authority because they have been elected. That would bring back a spirit to the situation that we should welcome.

Are you saying that either option—direct election by postal ballot or an electoral college system of nomination—would be better than what is in the bill at the moment?

Absolutely.

I have to make a point about best practice. I am afraid that it has taken us a long time in Scotland—despite my accent I have been here for 39 years—to get round to national parks. Nevertheless, we are creating a unique solution that no other country has tried. We should be looking at what the rest of the world has been doing in the past 150 years to set up and run national parks.

Many aspects of national parks south of the border are comparable to Scotland's new endeavour. The Environment Act 1995 was brought about by pressure from people in the 11 national parks, who wanted a better say in the running of their areas. Before 1995, two thirds of the membership of every national park board were local authority people, but that was not satisfactory to the people who lived in the parks. The Government therefore brought in the new formula of 50 per cent plus one take away the number you first thought of and you end up with something that is more acceptable. If there are 26 people on the board, 20 per cent of them now come from parish councils, the English equivalent of community councils. Those people are nominated by the parish council; I do not think that they are elected. That is the sort of intermediate position that we would like.

I was interested in what you said about how community councillors are elected in the Stirling Council area. Some areas are not as good as that. In some places, community councillors are pretty much self-nominated and elected unopposed because there is not a great deal of interest. The community councils in your area seem to be more relevant and of greater interest to local people.

Community councils are obviously important. I am sure that you agree that the bill as introduced is an improvement on the draft bill, as it makes specific reference to community councils. However, community councils are not the only representatives of local interests. What are your views on other local interests, such as recreational and cultural interest groups or landowners? Who should be responsible for ensuring that those voices are heard? Should it be the local authority or the ministers' appointees who cater for those interests?

Local landowners and recreational users are all part of the community.

But they would not be represented through the community council.

Why not?

Do you not regard yourselves as representatives of the residents?

Are not the residents also landowners or recreational users?

There could be specific, narrower interests such as those relating to recreation or cultural heritage.

There are to be advisory groups.

You envisage that such interests would be involved in advisory groups.

I see no reason why they could not be involved in advisory groups. The community council is a broad church and has a variety of members. In many ways those interests could be represented by members of the community. I know that groups such as the Ramblers Association will want to have an input, but I am sure that they will want to have an official or unofficial advisory group anyway.

Dr Murray's point was raised at various committees. No solution was reached but it was suggested that, in the long run, those interests could best serve the community by providing their expertise through advisory panels.

Do I understand correctly that you are all proposing that the interests in national parks of landowners and farmers should be confined to advisory groups?

I suggested that one third of members should be appointed by the Scottish ministers because expertise is required to address the various issues relating to national parks. The state will make a considerable investment into the running and organisation of national parks. That is why the position in this area was strengthened just five years ago south of the border. The Edwards panel report, "Fit for the Future", which was published in 1991, identified what had gone wrong or what had not been ideal in the 40 years of national parks. That panel found that Governments—it did not say which Governments—had made many political appointments and that park authorities were losing the technical edge that was needed to ensure that national parks were national parks on matters such as biodiversity, conservation, positive agriculture, forestry and so on.

As agriculture and forestry are the biggest land users in the area, I would expect that the third of members that the Scottish ministers appointed would include people who are knowledgeable about and committed to local interests. I not think that the authority should be made up of people representing certain industries—that there must be a hotel owner, a caravan site owner, a forest owner and so on—as that is not a good reason for choosing people. The test should not be what the park can do for them, but what they can do for the park.

Some of the local authority representatives and the representatives from the other third would represent local interests. I favour the electoral college approach, in which people stand for membership of the national park authority. They may be people who do not have enough spare time to want to be a fully-fledged district council member but have enough to time to contribute to something as interesting as the park authority.

At a conference in the Cairngorms, the vice-chairman of the Peak District National Park Authority, who was a farmer, complained that he spent three days a week on his duties as vice-chairman. Presumably, he has that post because of his abilities.

One could turn the whole thing around. The national park authority could be like the Cairngorms Partnership is at the moment. Members of the various interest groups—I think that there are about 22—meet, and each member chairs another advisory committee.

Does that work well?

The Cairngorms Partnership seems to work very well. It has taken five or six years to get going but it runs well now. People accept it and it is well respected.

Is there some reason for adopting a completely new model, as all of you seem to want to do?

We have just responded to what is proposed. We were told initially that community councils would not be represented. Now we will be allowed to sit on an advisory group but not on the park authority. I think that in the Cairngorms it would cost least money and be least disruptive if the Cairngorms Partnership were given more powers and turned into a national park authority.

If community councils were given an allocation of seats on national park authorities, how would you ensure that they were representative and spread throughout the area of the park? If you are not given an allocation of seats, have you considered making nominations to local authorities and the Executive to get representatives on to park authorities?

The electoral college approach is my idea to ensure that there is a spread. We are talking about the possibility of including Argyll forest park—a vast area that was not in the SNH recommendations. Far fewer people live there than live around Aberfoyle, Callander and Drymen. We need to have a system such as an electoral college in which the seats are divided into three groups—that would not work if there were 20 members, so we would have to take the big decision to move to 21. We could then decide on the allocation of the community seats. I think it would be convenient to allocate places on the basis of local authority boundaries. People could then be elected or nominated by community councils. Membership should not be restricted to community councils. I hope that we will get people who want to do the job, but I think that they should be elected by the community council.

In the Cairngorms area, our community council group is representative of the whole area. There is one member from Perthshire, one from Angus, one from Glenlivet, one from Donside, two from Deeside and five from Badenoch and Strathspey—two from Badenoch and three from Strathspey. We were all nominated and then elected. When I was elected, I was not a member of the Laggan community association but was asked to be its representative. It is feasible to achieve a good representation of the area.

The representatives need not necessarily all be community councillors. In Donside, there is a community trust rather than a community council, although it works along similar lines.

If the representatives were not community councillors, how could the community control them? Community councillors are elected and have a mandate, so people have control over what they do.

The representatives would be responsible to their community council. They would have to report to it and take due note of what it said. They would have to provide regular feedback.

As it is, although I live in Laggan, I talk to the councils in Newtonmore, Kincraig and Dalwhinnie if necessary. I am duty bound to speak to the other community councils, which do not have someone sitting on the group. We are responsible to them.

Do the community councils have some form of sanction, so that if a person does not represent them, he or she can be removed?

I am sure that they do. Someone would sit for only two or three years, then there would be fresh nominations.

If we go down that road, there has to be some control. I would like community councillors to be involved, but if outsiders from another group were involved, they would still be able to attend a community council as an associate member. That is where the community councils could exercise control.

People can be elected to community councils for their expertise or particular interest. They do not necessarily have a vote, but they are part of the council. Some have a vote—it depends on how they are elected.

I want to follow that up. Accountability is the crux of the matter. It could be that 20 per cent of the board will be elected from community councils. What would be the lines of accountability? What formal mechanisms would be in place for reporting back? Would people attend every single community council meeting and report back? Would they produce an annual report? What needs to be put in place to ensure that there is a line of accountability?

Should there be a limit on the number of terms of office? Would people stand once, twice or whatever? If the appointment was for four years and you were not happy with the person after two years, should there be a mechanism in place to allow people to be removed?

If someone joins something, they should jolly well attend. If they cannot do that, they should keep out of the kitchen. People should therefore attend every community council meeting or whatever other meetings they are supposed to attend.

A number of community councils probably would not want a report at every meeting. Some of them find difficulty getting a quorum. One cannot be dogmatic about what they have to do. The situation will evolve. Community councils will indicate the degree of reporting back that they want and the degree of exercise of control. Once people are on the authority, however they get there, whether put there by the local authority or by Scottish ministers, they have a responsibility and a duty to use their judgment to address the issues before them. They are not there to do what the party says, if they are an elected member, or to do what Scottish ministers want them to do, if they are put there by them. They have their own responsibility. If there were three groups, for example, I honestly would not see a big difference between them.

I would expect people to attend if requested. In Badenoch and Strathspey, we have a community council forum, which meets four times a year. I would expect them to attend that and give us reports and updates. Otherwise, they should attend any individual community council that wants them to come and speak. A three-year term of office would be sufficient. A shorter term would probably not be helpful, because it takes a year to get one's feet under the table. People would stand for re-election or stand down after three years.

Should there be a limit on the number of terms for which people can put their name forward?

It will be a lot of hard work—there will be many meetings—so I would have thought that three years would be enough, or six at the very most. By that time, they would be exhausted.

Members have quite rightly indicated that the line of accountability is key. Do you agree that, as framed, the bill sets out no direct line of accountability, apart from through the 10 members who will face local elections every three or four years? You suggest that some representatives—whether there are four of them or six or seven—should live and work within the community, so that they would be free and able to attend community council and forum meetings as and when necessary. That would provide a direct link and line of accountability. As the legislation is framed, we will not necessarily have that. It is perhaps unlikely, but we could have a situation where none of the 20 representatives lived in the national park area.

Perhaps Frank Bracewell could drop me a note on his thoughts on an electoral college, as I am interested in progressing that idea.

I should be pleased to do that.

Are there any other comments?

I would be interested to see that note as well.

I am sure that the clerk will circulate the note to members.

If there are no further questions, I want to express our gratitude to Councillor Ian Miller, Tim Stone, Frank Bracewell, Murdoch Cameron, Mrs Sheena Slimon and Douglas Murray for coming along to help us with our investigation into stage 1 of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill.

Thank you for having us.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—