Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee. May I ask everyone to switch off any mobile phones or pagers.
The committee will be interested in the suggestion from the Subordinate Legislation Committee that a procedure could be used to write into the bill a section that would allow amendment of the designation orders. That procedure is known as a super-affirmative process; it has been used on occasion at Westminster, for example, in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
The fact that the bill leaves so much open to designation by the national parks order and that that order cannot be altered, but only accepted or rejected, has certainly been a concern. The suggestion that Elaine Murray outlined would be welcome.
That would help to solve some of our worries that perhaps we were not spending enough time on ensuring that we got it all right. An opportunity to amend the legislation once it were in force and we were considering specific parks would be immensely helpful. We would not be left with the ability only to accept or reject. The committee needs to take that on board.
I should explain that I am in the chair because Alex Johnstone has a slipped disc. I am sure that all of us, especially me, wish him a speedy recovery. We have received apologies from Cathy Peattie and Lewis Macdonald.
Thank you. I will do a brief introduction covering three main points, then Stuart will sweep up anything that I have missed out or not explained properly.
I would like to make a point regarding a perception that I think is held throughout the Cairngorms. Local people do not see their homeland as some sort of problem in need of a national park solution. They certainly do not want a national park that is there just for the sake of it so that people can say that Scotland has national parks. They do not want extra restrictions beyond those in the present designations.
You realise, I take it, that we are considering the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, which is enabling legislation. If it is passed, there would then be the opportunity for the Government to introduce specific national park orders to set up national parks. Those orders would define the boundaries of the parks and other matters to do with their management. Are you in favour of the concept of national parks? If so, do you have any particular problems with the bill as introduced? That is what we have to report on.
We do not have specific problems with the bill as introduced. I think that I have already answered your question about whether we favour national parks. We favour them if they are created with excellence in mind and are properly funded. This may not be what you want to hear, but I do not think that they will work if they are done on the cheap.
My question is actually about a different topic. Last week, we heard from Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and members of the community councils in the two areas where the first national parks are most likely to be situated. You might be aware that an addition to the draft bill indicated that the Scottish ministers could appoint to the national park authority
It is absolutely essential that land management interests are represented on the national park board as well as the advisory panels.
What would be the disadvantages of not being represented on the national park authority itself?
There would be a detachment from the land. People who do not live and work on the land do not have the same depth of knowledge of land management processes.
That is absolutely right. The national park authority would lose the unique experience possessed by land managers and their families of working on the land for many generations. By their very nature, the areas that will be part of the national park are sensitive and agriculturally difficult to work. It would be essential to have people with experience of that situation and those areas on the park board. Some farmers have argued that, perhaps because of the large percentage of land area that is managed by farmers, crofters, landowners and foresters, they should have far more representation on the park board. I do not altogether subscribe to that view. We need only one or maybe two people on the board who can put our argument well; otherwise, we cannot win it politically or with the public.
You might be aware that the Loch Lomond area wants four or five farmers on the board, and it is sticking to its guns on that.
Both submissions appear to indicate that increased resources should be targeted on a national park area if it was set up, because of increased planning restrictions and the rural stewardship scheme. However, it has been argued that we should not target resources on national parks because, as is the inevitable nature of a Government dealing with a fixed cake, the amount of money available for farmers outside national park areas would be reduced. Have you any views on that argument?
I should not get political, but I cannot help it.
Well, you are in the right place.
I voted yes-yes in the referendum.
Thank you very much.
As there is a completely new funding head for the Scottish Parliament, it surely makes sense to put a ha'penny or a third of a penny on income tax to fund the parks, which gets around the fact that money is being taken from a fixed cake. As the parks are for the nation, the nation should pay for them through taxation, which is a political point of view to which we would not subscribe offhand.
I have a problem of conscience in taking money from farmers in one area and giving it to my area, for example. I would back what Stuart Black says. If we are to implement a national park, it should be paid for by another means.
We probably do not have queues of farmers at our surgeries, asking us to put up taxation, but things may change.
The produce from farms in the national park could provide added value, which could go some way to paying towards the added costs. Would the price that you were able to obtain from your produce balance the more costly effects of working in the national park?
Selling our produce is the biggest problem. I feel that there are marketing advantages being in a national park, but actually achieving a premium for products is difficult. There are currently schemes that are trying to do that, but they are failing.
I am really speaking about the fact that the national park would be marketed at home and abroad, and, to an extent, would be world-renowned. The name would be known—there would not be a difficulty with marketing a new name or a new product. You would almost not have to do the marketing; the use of the name should open doors.
I declare an interest: I live within the Cairngorms Partnership area. As the witnesses know, we are considering this enabling bill at stage 1. Part of this committee's job is to ensure that there has been proper consultation. Alastair MacLennan said earlier that we have had enough consultation, for goodness' sake—at least I thought that was what you said, Alastair.
We felt that the time scale for the bill was extremely short. The fact that the copies ran out the week that the bill was produced and that the consultation was only of six weeks meant that people only got a copy of the documents two weeks before the end of the closing date for submissions.
That was the feedback that I got.
We felt, at the launching of the bill, that the consultation period was too short, and there did seem to be a large amount of consultation documents available. They ran out immediately, although they were available on the internet.
SNH has suggested that it should retain powers of last resort, once a national park is set up. How do you feel about that?
We feel that the four aims of the park must be equal. I thought that the bill had been altered so that they were more equal. If conservation and economic interests conflicted, would not the matter be referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Yes. I am getting a bit confused. The argument that was put forward concerned the powers of last resort for the national parts authority to stop damaging developments. I take it that you agree with those powers.
A park plan will be drawn up, which will be the bible and map of the way in which the park will proceed. I would have thought that any conflict should be charged against that agreed park plan, at which point the First Minister could adjudicate on the matter.
Thank you very much for your evidence, Mr Black.
Thank you.
We move to the subject of marine national parks. I invite Dr John Webster and Dr Ian Duncan to come forward.
Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation to attend. I am here to speak on behalf of the Federation of Scottish Aquaculture Producers, which is a fairly loosely constituted body that is being established to deal with various areas of common interest across the aquaculture industry. Its members to date are Scottish Quality Salmon Ltd, the organisation for which I work, the Scottish producers in the British Trout Association, and the British Halibut Association. The Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers is considering its position in relation to membership of the federation.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation cannot support the bill in its present form. It is clear that the bill has been defined in terms of terrestrial national parks, but what happens in the terrestrial world does not translate to the sea. Issues of ownership, local authority demarcation, access, tourism, and resource management and development are fundamentally different offshore.
Thank you. When did you first become aware of the proposal for marine national parks? Have you responded to any of the SNH consultations over the past few years?
We have been aware of the plans for some time. The problem is that the informal discussions have left us with more questions than answers. Until we know which areas are prospective marine national parks, it is difficult to respond to such consultation meaningfully.
Are you opposed to the idea because you have not really been involved deeply in the consultation process?
No, quite the reverse. Of the associations, we represent by far the greatest number of fishermen. They are particularly conscious of issues such as this, because they have many fears about them. When we cannot offer them answers or clarify particular points for them, those fears grow. Over the past few years, they have been concerned that marine national parks would represent closures of waters.
To what extent have you pressed Government for answers to those questions?
We have asked Government, but Government has not provided any significant answers. We wanted some idea of where a marine national park would be located, but no one has been able to suggest a site. If it would merely abut a terrestrial area, our concerns would be reduced significantly. Similarly, if the park would be an area of reefs, our concerns would be reduced—fishermen tend to avoid reefs, as their nets become snared there. Until we get an answer, it is difficult to advance a meaningful response.
Would it be right to say that you opposed to marine national parks in principle?
Not quite. We are unclear about what a marine national park would be, as the bill is drafted primarily for terrestrial areas. We are not by any stretch of the imagination against the principle of conservation. If that is the aim of the bill, we will support it. However, we are against this particular mechanism.
Let us be clear about this. At stage 1, we are considering the general principles of the bill, rather than the enabling legislation that would set up a marine national park or the Cairngorms national park. Are you saying that you are not opposed to the general principles of this bill?
The section that deals with marine national parks differs significantly—in the depth, quantity and quality of information that is provided—from the provisions for terrestrial national parks. The section on marine national parks appears to have been tagged on to a terrestrial national parks bill. We regard that as less than satisfactory, as there are fundamental differences between the terrestrial world and what lies offshore.
Why do you think that the section has been tagged on to the bill? You say that you have been talking about the concept of marine national parks for several years, so it should be no surprise that the Administration should want to include such parks in the bill, even though there is less enthusiasm for them than for terrestrial national parks.
A large number of people are less enthusiastic about marine national parks. I get the impression that people want the section to remain in the bill simply because it puts down a marker for future activity. We can understand that, but it seems unfortunate that so much work has been done to create a sensible bill to establish terrestrial national parks, but so little attempt has been made to match that in a marine environment.
My questions are directed more at the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It is interesting that the Federation of Scottish Aquaculture Producers takes a somewhat different line from the SFF on the principle of marine national parks. Assuming that provision for marine national parks remains in the bill, could you propose changes that would make it more satisfactory?
As I suggested in my opening remarks, it might be useful if the issue could be remitted to a group such as the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group, in an expanded form, to take account of the fact that aquaculturists do not presently sit on that committee.
So you would prefer marine national parks to be removed from the bill and introduced as separate primary legislation.
Yes.
Would increased provision for byelaw powers and an assurance of representation on a national park authority—there is provision in the bill as introduced for sectoral interests, nominated by the minister, to serve on the national park authority—allay some of your concerns about marine national parks?
Probably not, primarily because it is easy to identify the interested parties in a terrestrial environment, whereas, for an offshore environment, it is not simply those who are on the contingent land who would be interested.
I refer to the provision in the bill as introduced—which was not in the draft bill—to allow the minister to appoint people with sectoral interests. In this example, those people could appropriately be representatives of fishing or indeed aquaculture interests. Would that help to alleviate some of your concerns?
Once again, no. Our problem is that although we are the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, we represent a number of associations that do not always have a common policy on such issues. One difficulty is that there would have to be significant representation by all those who would fish in an area, not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. If the area were outside a six-mile limit, there would have to be European representation as well. At that stage, I suspect that there would have to be representation from every stakeholding country in that area. The cost that would be involved in that level of consultation would be almost prohibitive.
What are the views of Dr Webster's organisation? You are not as unhappy with the concept, but could improvements be made to the bill to improve the situation?
It is early days. We are talking about the enabling legislation. In time, we would like there to be local management groups that would incorporate the people who are responsible for generating wealth within the area. This is as much an opportunity as it is a problem. Our markets want aquaculture products that have been produced in pristine environments. We do not see this as a problem at this stage, unless something emerges in the secondary legislation that creates problems for us.
The purpose of the committee is to consider whether we agree with the general principles of the bill. In your response to Dr Murray's question, it seemed as though you were unhappy with the principle, whereas you just replied to me that it was not the principle that you disagreed with.
I understand that it is only an enabling section. Do I want it removed? The answer is yes, simply because we would accept wholeheartedly the underlying premise of conservation that we discussed earlier. Once again, it would not work to try to adapt the terrestrial component of the bill to the marine environment. The significant problems in attempting to do that would have to be addressed separately. It does not simply come down to representation; it comes down to more fundamental issues.
I will take a slightly different tack, but also directed at Dr Duncan. The question is borne of slight ignorance on my part. I think I am right in saying that you—or the federation—would claim that the marine environment is already subject to a number of designations. You would say that there are enough designations already. You mentioned that certain measures are already in place to protect the marine environment and the marine ecosystem. Can you give me some examples of those measures and the extent to which they restrict the activities of your members?
You can look at that in two different ways: protecting and conserving the fish stocks, and protecting and conserving the ecosystem.
We had a discussion with the Cairngorms Partnership about added value from products that were produced in a national park. Have you given any thought to the economic benefit of a marine national park? We have had written evidence about the possible resulting benefit to fish stocks. In some countries, fishermen have asked for small national parks to be designated as they add value to the fishing grounds outside that area by acting as a breeding ground.
We have thought about that. The problem is that if one were to seek to enhance the price of stock from an area that had been designated a national park, there would be an effect on stocks that were not in a national park. We would not welcome that; it would increase the price in only one area and might have a detrimental effect on the effort involved in collecting the stock.
What about the improvement of fishing grounds leading to a greater stock of mature fish on the boundary of the park? It would not be possible to market those fish as produce of the park, but it would make fishing more profitable in that area.
That is predicated on an assumption that a breeding ground would be designated as a national park. Again, the absence of clarity about what areas are being discussed makes the question difficult to respond to. I do not think that it would be helpful to set up a national park around a breeding ground as breeding grounds move over time.
The designation of national parks would be dealt with under secondary legislation. That would be consulted on widely.
I accept that, but I repeat that a national park would not necessarily be the best way of protecting a breeding ground.
We have talked about the economic advantages. Have you quantified the economic disadvantages of having a national park?
We spoke about the prices of fish. If a marine national park restricted the activities of fishermen, that would be a great concern. The bill does not touch on that, but it would be unsettling.
Given that there would not be many marine national parks—as far as I know, none have been proposed so far—and they would cover only small areas, would that be a huge problem?
If the park covered only a small area, I cannot see what good it would do anyway.
Most of the questions that I wanted to ask have been asked.
We are disturbed by the fact that it appears to have been treated as an afterthought, which suggests that a fundamentally important matter has been thought of as secondary. There are many restrictions facing fishermen and although Dr Webster said that the bill might in some way streamline those restrictions, I suspect that it would not. The legislation would impose added restrictions on the present strict and stringent restrictions. We would consider that to be unfortunate.
Presumably, one of the arguments in favour of a marine national park is that it would help to integrate the activities of all marine users, including fishermen. Are there examples of other Scottish organisations in which fishermen work together with other marine users?
Yes. However, when it comes to fish stocks, it is difficult to talk about an area of sea having borders, because fish tend to be migratory. We would prefer national management of fish stocks—at Scottish level, at inshore level or at offshore level—through mechanisms such as the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group. Such bodies are designed to bring together all the stakeholders in an area to achieve proactive moves towards legislation. That seems to be more sensible than designating a small area of sea, which might or might not include breeding fish and which might be offshore or inshore. If we need only a means of bringing together all the stakeholders, a marine park will be unwieldy because there will be many stakeholders in a small area.
Thank you, Dr Duncan and Dr Webster, for your evidence.
I am afraid that I am not a doctor.
I am sorry; there are so many doctors with us this afternoon.
I am in distinguished company. I have to correct the confusion about what WWF stands for, which is the World Wide Fund for Nature, but not the World Wrestling Federation, as is sometimes suggested. [Laughter.]
Thanks. Before we discuss marine parks, there are some points that I want to raise on representation in general. In your submission, you suggest that there should be "a full stakeholder analysis" in respect of national park proposals. Has there been adequate involvement of stakeholders in the plans that are being produced for the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond?
There has been much consultation and involvement in those plans, but I am worried by the fact that that involvement has been passive. Plans and ideas have been made available—as required by the bill—only to people who have the capacity to respond to them. I would like the situation to be turned on its head—just as national parks deserve the best conservation measures, they deserve the best involvement of people in the planning process. That process should be active rather than passive.
Are you suggesting an improved process for other potential national parks, or should we return to the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond for further analysis?
I hope that, in future, the process that leads to the production of national park plans will encourage people to participate actively. I hope also that the national park authority will be required to ensure that there is active participation, instead of the passive consultation that we seem to have at the moment, in which plans are made available only to people who are able to respond. That is an issue for land-based national parks and marine parks.
I would like to pursue the theme of stakeholder involvement—particularly community involvement—in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms. Part of the committee's job is to judge how effective the consultation process has been and to comment on that. The Executive's analysis of the consultation exercise shows that 64 per cent—nearly two thirds—of people who responded to the consultation wanted either direct elections to the management board or more direct local representation. Do you have any comments on that? You have been talking about the importance of stakeholders, among whom I am including the community.
If enacted, the bill would be enabling legislation, but it is difficult to make a specific recommendation for a specific area. Representation on the management board of each park would have to evolve from the process of proposing and designating the parks. It would be for the stakeholders in a park—both in the community and at a wider national or international level—to decide about levels of representation. Our proposal for a stakeholder analysis was an attempt to provide a level, objective base line of the sorts of people who should be included in that process. If such people are not involved in the process at the moment, they should be.
What sort of stakeholders are you talking about?
People with who live, work and carry out their business in a park are obviously stakeholders. There should also be mechanisms for involving a wider range of stakeholders, such as people who might have a relationship with an area as visitors and tourists and people who have an environmental interest, such as WWF and the plethora of other environmental organisations in Scotland.
Have you any comment to make on the proposal in the bill that 10 of the 20 board members should be appointed by Scottish ministers and that 10 should be appointed by local authorities?
We see that as a way of arriving at a balance. The bill contains the proviso that members who are appointed by ministers should have an interest in the park, but we would like those interests to be made clear.
So, is transparency very important?
Yes.
I would like to go back to the marine national parks. In your second submission, you express WWF's support for the concept of marine national parks, but say that you are unclear about the meaning of the bill's wording on the designation of marine areas. Could you suggest an improvement to the wording?
I do not know about the specific wording, but we hope that the parts of the bill that relate to the purposes and aims of the parks will not be changed by Scottish ministers—we hope that they will be the core principles of national parks. However, I agree with my colleagues that Scottish ministers should ensure that the bill is appropriate in relation to existing legislation at Scottish, United Kingdom and international level, and that it should ensure that stakeholders are involved.
You have heard the SFF's concern that nobody has been able to say where marine national parks might be designated. Do you have any suggestions for parks in Scottish waters?
We are discussing enabling legislation and I do not think it is for WWF to suggest particular areas. We hope that such proposals will come from people with an interest in the areas.
I am a bit puzzled. The SFF—who do not want the parks—do not know where they will be. The WWF—who want marine parks—do not know where they will be. It worries me that we are considering legislation, but do not know what the end result will be.
The bill is an enabling bill to—
But what would it enable?
We want to ensure that the bill does not preclude the possibility that marine national parks could be proposed in the same way as land-based national parks.
I am not convinced.
That was not the SFF's only concern. It is also concerned that a plethora of legislation already restricts fishing. How do you respond to the other points that the SFF made?
Which particular points do you mean?
The SFF sees no real need for national parks because it feels that the legislative framework that is required to protect the environment in fishing areas already exists.
National parks are not just about the environment. For WWF, what is exciting is the integration of environmental concerns with the legitimate need for sustainable development. National parks will provide a statutory focus—as well as an inspirational focus—that would ensure real integration. National parks are not only about biological conservation; they are about sustainability.
Some interested parties have suggested that, because the marine environment is so different, marine national parks should, perhaps, be removed from the legislation and that entirely separate primary legislation that is specific to marine national parks should be introduced. How does WWF respond to that?
We would like reference to marine parks to remain in the bill. Our initial response was that it should be mentioned in the first section, so that that section would say, "an area of land and/or sea." We would like "marine" to be mentioned there because the bill is an historic piece of legislation, and—as I said—throwing the baby out with the bath water is not justified. Acknowledging that the issue is complicated and difficult is no reason to say that we should not try to address it.
Do not you think that the matter is worthy of the extra attention that separate primary legislation would give it?
Perhaps the secondary legislation should sort out some of the issues, in particular who will be involved in managing and setting up parks.
I want to continue discussing the need for marine national parks. First, can you give us an example from any time during the past few years in which the existence of a marine national park would have made a difference? If there is a need for such parks, you must be able to give an example in which their existence would have made a positive difference. Secondly, there are various organisations in which marine users come together, such as the Moray Firth Partnership and the Solway Firth Partnership. Can you tell us why your objectives could only be achieved through a marine national park, rather than through some of the existing bodies?
As I said, our earlier submission lists many overseas examples of the benefits of marine national parks.
Can you, however, give an example in which such a park would have made a difference in Scotland?
Some of the designated special areas of conservation have had too narrow a biological and geographical focus. The national park mechanism would open up the process of conservation and bring in commercial users of resources. I cannot give the committee specific examples in which marine national parks have made a difference, but the difference that we would like to see is broadening of the negotiation from a narrow geographical or biological focus. We want to try to bring people in to that equation. What was the second question?
Are there objectives that cannot be achieved through existing partnerships?
Just as land-based national parks are being proposed as the top tier of designation that would ensure that an entire area is managed with specific aims—and would enable the integration of different aims in that area's management—so would marine areas in Scotland benefit from that status. There are existing designations and regulations and there is existing legislation, but they are very fragmented, and we want to bring them all together.
I want to change tack. Your previous submission mentioned land managers and the possibility of compelling them to produce individual land-management plans that would fit in with the park plan. Should they be offered encouragement to do that, such as, for example, a financial or economic benefit?
Yes. The natural progression would be first to seek voluntary compliance with the management plan of the national park and then to look at financial incentives. If that did not work, one could examine whether there should be some compulsion to follow the national park plan. It is interesting that national park authorities would now be given the remit of ensuring that the aims of the plan are achieved. Rather than merely having regard to the plan, we would like public bodies to be similarly compelled to ensure that the plan is achieved. We would also like private bodies to have to ensure that the plan is achieved.
Could the element of compulsion fall foul of the European convention on human rights?
We believe that the process leading up to the plan must be participatory and must involve land managers. In the long term, the amount of conflict will be reduced if resources and efforts are directed towards that. As those from the Cairngorms Partnership said, if a plan was agreed and someone had been involved in developing it, it would be difficult for them to turn round later and say that they will not follow it.
Does that strengthen the farming community's call to include a representative on the park board? If farmers were involved in the park board, would there be a stronger incentive for them to follow the park plan?
Yes. It is essential that land users are either directly represented or have a process for being represented with which they are happy.
Thank you, Mr Harrison. For the record, we shall take this evidence session as having included consideration of petition PE128, which we received from your organisation.
I did not have a chance to ask my questions. I thought that we were unable to question the witnesses.
You misunderstood what I was saying. If you have supplementary questions, of course you may ask them.
I shall say little by way of presentation, as this is our second appearance before the committee. You can take as read everything that we said before.
On representation, you said that you wanted local communities to be more closely involved in the management and governance of national parks. How do you suggest that that be achieved? Would it require any changes to the bill as introduced?
We are happy that the bill can achieve that as it stands, because it allows for more specific details about representation to be dealt with in the secondary legislation. However, the recent change to the bill, which puts more of a focus on ensuring representation from local interests, is important and helpful. Accepting that it might be a point for secondary legislation, SNH believes that there will always be a problem if the people who live in the park feel that they do not have a direct role in its management. The park would be seen as something that is run from outside or by central Government.
In your advice to Government on the national parks, you set out
We recognise that the bill has been changed to put more of an onus on ministers and local authorities to appoint people from the local area, which is a move in the right direction. SNH has mooted the idea of direct elections. We do not have any problem with that system as far as the management of the parks is concerned. However, the issue is about ensuring that local people feel enfranchised in the park system, and direct elections would be a good way of doing that.
We have taken evidence from community councils, which represent all the interest groups in the local community. Do you agree with the suggestion made by several councils that having four people on the board of 20 would be a reasonable way of anchoring direct local representation?
That is reasonable. The only rider is that, as you are aware, we have been asked to consult further on the issue of representation, so SNH does not have a formal position on what is right or wrong.
Will you clarify whether the further consultation will be specifically about the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs NPA and the Cairngorms NPA, or will it be about national park authorities generally?
The consultation will be undertaken only in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and in the Cairngorms.
Will the outcome of that consultation feed into the primary legislation or will it influence specific designations?
It is solely to advise ministers on the content of the secondary legislation.
Will you produce some form of guidance as a result of the consultation?
We will publish whatever we produce.
Whom are you consulting?
We are mindful that the primary legislation is going through Parliament now and that we must not do anything that pre-empts it. We cannot assume that the bill as it stands will be the final version of the legislation. Therefore, we have not embarked on formal consultation, although we have begun discussions with a range of groups in each area.
What is your latest thinking on marine parks?
The short answer is that it is developing. We thought that national parks had to apply to areas of land or land and sea. Therefore, we have to come clean and say that we did not start by considering a purely marine park; that concept has arisen relatively recently. SNH has no suggestions on where a purely marine park would be.
Would it be fair to say that SNH would be perfectly relaxed if marine national parks were left for separate primary legislation instead of being tagged on to the National Parks (Scotland) Bill?
We would like this legislation to enable national parks that are either on land or on land and sea. We have not argued the case for a purely marine national park. We would not regard it as critical if this legislation did not enable an entirely marine park. However, we would like the option of extending into the marine zone a terrestrial park that stopped at low watermark.
So we are not all at sea on the matter of marine national parks.
Strike that from the Official Report.
We do not operate that power. The last-resort power is something called a nature conservation order and is a power of the First Minister. SNH can apply to the First Minister to make such an order.
The question that I have in mind is still applicable. How often has such an order been applied for in the past 10 years or so?
I cannot give you a figure. During my nine years as a director of SNH, I have been involved in the application of nature conservation orders four or five times.
What leads to an order being applied for?
One case related to the cockle harvesting in the intertidal zone. Boats were coming up from Lowestoft and dredging the cockles off the Moray firth coast, so a nature conservation order was applied for in the Culbin SSSI. In another case, we applied for a nature conservation order to prevent dredging works in the River Spey that a landowner wanted to undertake and that we felt would be damaging. With nature conservation orders, there is provision for appeal and inquiry. They are not draconian in the sense that nobody can argue against them.
Do you think that such orders would be applied for more often in national parks, one of whose aims is social and economic development? There is bound to be a segment of society that regards national parks as a discouragement to economic development. Do you see that as a possible area of confrontation?
I hope that confrontation would be less likely in national parks. If the national park authority is achieving its purposes, it should be able to identify where conflicts may arise and to work out a way round them. In the past confrontations have come out of the blue and have tended to relate to black-and-white issues. I hope that there will be less need for nature conservation orders in national parks than elsewhere.
I thank Mr Jardine and Mr Rawcliffe for their attendance.
Next
Budget Process