Cairngorms National Park
I received a letter from Fiona McLeod asking me to find time at a meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee to discuss our consideration of the designation order for the Cairngorms national park.
I am looking to members to guide me on the approach that we should take. The first issue concerns the role of the Parliamentary Bureau in designating the lead committee in respect of instruments that are laid before the Parliament for its consideration. The designation order for the Cairngorms national park has not yet been laid, but it is anticipated that the Rural Development Committee will be designated as the lead committee.
I understand that it is possible but unusual for a secondary committee to be designated on an instrument, but that is an issue that would also be considered by the Parliamentary Bureau. I also take cognisance of the fact that much of the work that has taken place recently on the instrument has been undertaken by the Rural Development Committee, which has taken considerable evidence on the matter.
Given that work and the fact that the Rural Development Committee is likely to be designated as the lead committee, I suggest that the way for the Transport and the Environment Committee to express its interest in the planning issues that are involved in the instrument, is to appoint reporters. The committee could then ask those reporters to represent its interests at meetings of the Rural Development Committee at which the instrument was considered.
If we agree to go down that line, I intend to raise the issue with the convener of the Rural Development Committee. I will indicate the Transport and the Environment Committee's interest in the order and ask the convener of the Rural Development Committee to give our reporter due opportunity to contribute at meetings at which the instrument is considered. I am, however, open to comments or suggestions for alternative courses of action that members might like to make.
I will take Fiona McLeod first, as we are considering her letter.
Thank you. I should perhaps begin by explaining why I felt that it was necessary to raise the issue as an agenda item. If members look at annexe B of the paper that we have in front of us, it contains a copy of a letter to the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development from Mike Rumbles, the convener of the Rural Development Committee. Members will see that he raises a number of quite detailed questions.
Do you mean Alex Fergusson?
I apologise. Yes. As the Transport and the Environment Committee is not materially involved in the consideration of the instrument, I am not sure what the Executive's response is.
The Executive raises two points that are relevant to our committee and in which we have an interest. The first is the boundaries of the new Cairngorms national park, which will take in a large part of Scotland's environment—environment is within our remit. Members will note that in the consultation process there was almost unanimous opposition to the boundaries that the Executive proposed in its draft instrument.
The other matter that is especially important to our committee is planning powers. That is our subject and we should have a view on it. Once again, the majority of responses to the consultation ran contrary to the planning powers that the Scottish Executive and the Rural Development Committee are proposing. Given that Cairngorms national park will be the second national park, our committee would wish to consider the planning powers.
On committee designation, it struck me that the Social Justice Committee and the Local Government Committee were made secondary committees on the Building (Scotland) Bill, on which we are the lead committee. The Social Justice Committee has sent us a report giving its views on the Building (Scotland) Bill, which will become an annexe to our report on the bill. If we were a secondary committee on the designation order for the Cairngorms national park, not only would we be able to send a reporter—who in effect would be an observer, because they could not vote—to the Rural Development Committee, but any report that we produced would become an annexe to the Rural Development Committee's report.
I understand that work load is always a problem for our committee, but given that the order has not been laid, and that there will be 40 days between its being laid and the Parliament's having to report on it, I prefer that we reserve judgment on our work load and reassess it on the day on which the order is laid.
I will take other members' comments. There are a couple of procedural issues. First, the Parliamentary Bureau will consider which committee will be the lead committee to consider the order. It will then lodge a motion stating to which committee the order should go, which Parliament will approve or otherwise. Secondly, it is more common that there are secondary committees when considering primary legislation. It is not as common, but it is not impossible, for that to happen with subordinate legislation.
In a sense, we have precedents. When we first started three years ago, the Transport and the Environment Committee took evidence on national parks. In fact, at that time, we were under the impression that we would be the lead committee on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, but the bill went to the Rural Development Committee, for other good reasons. Also, we co-operated with the Rural Development Committee on the aquaculture inquiry, because it made its feelings clear about what should happen when we were considering the implications for the safety of our marine environment. So there is a precedent of our taking evidence on national parks and a precedent of our working with the Rural Development Committee on another issue. I strongly support what Fiona McLeod said.
There are severe differences of opinion. I have a very thick file of lobbying from various interests all over Scotland. There are two completely different views of what a national park should be, with regard to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and to the Cairngorms. It is vital that another opinion is taken before the Executive makes up its mind.
I am not necessarily against Fiona McLeod's idea that we should seek a role as a secondary committee. I have considered some of the concerns that were raised in Alex Fergusson's letter to the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and which were discussed at the evidence-taking session.
Great strength of feeling exists on the issues, particularly on the proposed boundary of the park. There is not necessarily a simple answer on the boundary issue that will satisfy everyone. Another committee could be designated as lead committee and we could have a secondary role. I would be more comfortable about that if, as Fiona McLeod mentioned, we had a clearer indication of the minister's thinking on how he intends to respond to Alex Fergusson's letter. The introduction to the letter makes it clear that the minister had indicated to the Rural Development Committee that the committee's views would be taken closely into account.
Before taking a decision on whether we want to bid for secondary or primary committee status, we could ask the minister what his intentions are, given that he has received Alex Fergusson's letter of 14 October and the Official Report of the evidence-taking session. If the minister can assure us that he intends to frame the order in the light of consideration of that material, we might not need to go to the extent of being a secondary committee. If he cannot give us an unequivocal answer on that, we might want to take a secondary role in the process to ensure that all the bases are covered. We should not take a decision today, but should write to the minister to challenge him on what his response on the matter will be. If we get a happy response, that will be fine. If we do not, we will need to reconsider Fiona McLeod's recommendation.
My understanding is that the minister has not yet provided a response to Alex Fergusson's letter; certainly, the clerks are not aware that such a response has been made.
I support Fiona McLeod's view that we should seek to be a secondary committee on the issue. The designation order is extremely important, because it concerns our second national park, which is in an important part of Scotland. We want to get the legislation right. I have grave doubts that the process is going well. I have many concerns about the fact that something that has been widely consulted on and agreed has apparently been ignored.
I do not know whether we have time to write to the minister and to receive a response, because the designation order will be published soon.
Its publication is imminent.
I think that it might be published by the end of the week.
If we were to consider the order on the Cairngorms national park, we would need to focus on issues that fall directly within our remit, such as planning. We should not get into a broader debate about the size of the park—it would be appropriate to leave that to the Rural Development Committee. Although I acknowledge that that is an important aspect of the order, it is not the role of a secondary committee to replicate the work of the lead committee. A secondary committee should focus on issues that fall directly within its remit.
It is worth bearing in mind the history of the situation. The reason why the Transport and the Environment Committee was not the lead committee for consideration of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill was that, at that time, we were considering the Transport (Scotland) Bill. The decision was taken on that basis. It was not decided that, on principle, national parks should be dealt with by what was then the Rural Affairs Committee. The argument was one of contingency.
I sat through the Rural Affairs Committee's consideration of the planning issues in the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. Although I was told that I would be on the Rural Affairs Committee for only a brief period, I ended up being a member of it for seven months. It probably would be legitimate for us to consider some aspects of the Cairngorms national park issue. I go along with Angus MacKay's suggestion about establishing what our role should be. We should not necessarily automatically accept the position of subordinate committee in relation to implementation. When the decision was taken that the Rural Affairs Committee should be lead committee on the bill, we queried whether that meant that that committee should always deal with national parks. We put in a couple of markers in that regard, so we have grounds for returning to the Executive on that.
As the Rural Development Committee has recently taken a great deal of evidence on the Cairngorms national park, it would be going a bit far if we were to try to become the lead committee on the issue at this late stage.
I agree. We cannot take over as the lead committee at this stage. It might have been more appropriate if, in the first place, the issue had come to the Transport and the Environment Committee, but it did not and we must accept that. That said, I agree with Fiona McLeod and Nora Radcliffe that we must consider the committee's position in relation to the designation order. We can play a role in the process, but that role must focus on the issues that are pertinent to the committee.
Focusing on those issues will be difficult, as the size of the boundaries will have an impact on who the planning authority should be. We were previously led to believe that the majority chunk of the park inside the curtailed boundaries would be left in the Highland Council area. Under those circumstances, there might have been an argument to say that the local authority should continue as the planning authority. However, if it is a wider park that takes into consideration the Perthshire hills and the Angus glens, there is a strong argument to say that the national park authority should be the planning authority. It is difficult to divorce issues of boundaries from planning perspectives.
I accept that point. Where there is a real link, those issues could be teased out. The majority opinion that I am picking up is that the committee wants to have a role in the consideration of the designation order. Ultimately, we cannot say that we will have such a role; it is for the Parliament to decide where to place the order for consideration.
The two alternatives are that we indicate now that we would be interested in having such a role or, as Angus McKay suggested, that we inquire how the minister intends to respond to the correspondence and the Official Report of the Rural Development Committee meeting before we decide whether to express that interest. Expressing interest and writing to the minister are not incompatible with each other. The question is whether the members who want to express that interest are prepared to accept a delay of perhaps a week while we correspond with the minister, or whether they want us to pursue the matter now. Fiona McLeod raised the issue, so I invite her to respond.
If we had a timetable for the laying of the designation order, I would say that we had time to write to the minister. However, some members have said that the order could be laid by the end of the week; therefore, we do not have time to write to the minister. Rather than talking about timings, we should return to the principle that members have been discussing, which is that we want to take at least a secondary role in considering the order. I believe that we should indicate that now.
I am not clear whether taking a secondary role will involve considering just planning or also the boundaries. I feel that we should discuss just the planning powers, if we are to consider the order, and not the boundaries.
I accept the point that Bruce Crawford made: that there is an overlap between those two issues. It would not be appropriate for us to try to take an overarching view of the order, as we would not be the lead committee. However, there is a genuine point about the planning powers and the boundaries having an impact on each other. That issue could be explored without opening up the whole issue of the order.
Okay.
The consensus seems to be that members want the committee to take a secondary role in the consideration of the order. It is not in the gift of the committee to decide that. Therefore, as the convener, I shall send a letter to the Parliamentary Bureau, expressing the consensus view of the committee and asking it to take that into consideration when it decides where the order should go.
It would be courteous to write to the convener of the Rural Development Committee as well.
I shall copy the letter to the convener of the Rural Development Committee.
Can you define clearly what we would envisage our role to be?
The letter that I shall send to the Parliamentary Bureau will contain the key points that members have made in today's discussion. Are we agreed on that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
I suspend the meeting for two minutes, to allow our witnesses on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill to take their seats and get organised.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—