Official Report 189KB pdf
We now move to item 2 on our agenda. I am pleased to welcome back to the committee the Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack. I would also like to welcome her officials, Andrew Dickson and Jane Hope. I think that this is the third meeting of the committee that they have attended. I would also like to welcome Neil MacLennan, who is the minister's personal secretary.
I would like to bring people up to date. Since the previous meeting on national parks, we have completed the recording and logging of all the responses to the consultation. Members will have received a summary of the 332 responses we had received up to 8 March. Since then, we have received a further 12 responses. We intend to complete a summary of all the views we have received and to identify the amendments to the bill that we have made as a result. That will be made available to the public; we are keen that all who have made a contribution to the exercise should see the outcome of the consultation.
Thank you for outlining your views.
As you rightly say, the purposes and aims generated most response. There was a mixed response to the fourth aim, which is
We are experiencing increasing difficulty managing tourist numbers. That is one of the main pressures behind the establishment of the parks. It is difficult for me to be prescriptive today about what economic development is most likely to be appropriate. I think that the national park plans will set out the right local balance. The ability of the national park plan to zone different areas of the national park is the key way in which appropriate management at national park level can be achieved. For example, in certain parts of a park particular interests or designations might have a different type of control from that which would apply in other areas, such as an area on the fringe of a park. It is appropriate that such balances should be struck at the national park level.
Will you comment further on the increase in visitor numbers, which some people feel could undermine the reason for designation by jeopardising the natural and cultural heritage?
Managing the increase in visitor numbers is one of the key tasks of the national parks. I know that the work of the interim committee on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs focuses on that issue. We need to learn how parks elsewhere in the world manage visitor pressure. We should focus on the scale of the national parks that we are designating. It is up to the national park plan to identify areas that are less pressured, and areas that are under extreme pressure and need a slightly different kind of protection—it is important to get the balance right.
Getting that balance right is at the heart of the bill. I fully support the holistic approach that you have outlined, which recognises that we are trying to achieve a balance between the natural and cultural heritage, sustainability, public access and social and economic development. When you say that you are persuaded to look again at how that has been presented, which particular part of the bill do you mean? I would sign up to the statement of broad aims in section 1, as I suspect would most members of the committee. The key part is section 8(5), which says that where there is a conflict, the duty to promote conservation should come first. Is that the paragraph you are talking about, or are you considering some other way of presenting the general principles?
The issue is how the aims interact with each other; they need not necessarily conflict. We are trying to achieve mutually supportive development between those aims. The right balance has to be achieved so that there is no false conflict between them. There are bound to be areas in which the aims can reinforce each other. I am trying to focus on how they work together—that is the important issue.
Irene asked whether anything would be ruled out in the way of economic development in a national park. I am concerned that some new industries—renewable energy, for example—may not be taken into account during our current consideration of the legislation. Will it be more difficult for people in a national park to come up with ideas for economic development? Will there be a system whereby they can work with the authority on the development of those ideas?
The key issue is that development would have to be appropriate. In a sense, that is already the case. We would take into account the national planning policies and the structure plan as a broad indication of what would be acceptable. A national park authority would be able to identify opportunities within a park. Developments that are allowed at present would not inevitably be ruled out. There will be more of a co-ordinated, integrated approach to managing those developments, where they are considered to be appropriate.
If we have completed our discussion of the purposes and aims of the national park, we will move on to appointments to the national park authorities, on which Mike Rumbles will lead.
This is the next biggie, if we can call it that. It is clear, from all the information that we have before us, that appointments to the board is the other major issue. Judging by some of the responses here, it is quite a contentious issue.
While I accept your point that we should engage local communities and give them a sense that we are involving them practically in this process, it is difficult to find a formula that will please everybody. However, I acknowledge that this is an important issue.
I welcome all that you have said, minister, but there is a certain suspicion among people. I am sure that everyone in this room has come across people who are not necessarily representative of local communities. People turn up to meetings and make their voices heard, but there is only one sure way of knowing that a person is representative of their local community: if they have that community's backing. I hope that the minister will take that on board.
I understand what you have said, minister, about it being difficult to have a prescription, as it were. I assume that every area in which we will be working will be different—there will be different activists and other people in areas with different interests.
I would like to back up the point about the importance of who is on the national park authority. I am sure the minister agrees that the success or otherwise of national parks will dependent on that to a significant extent.
What I am trying to get at, minister—you heard Cathy Peattie and Alex Fergusson talk about it—is that there is a feeling that the process should not just be top down; it should not be about the appointment of people by ministers from on high. There should instead be a recognition that local communities ought themselves to bring people forward. That would help, even if there is a reluctance to go down the route of direct election—which is still my preference. If local communities choose their own representatives, or at least a certain number of them, it would be helpful.
Can I come back in at this point?
Yes—unless you want to comment on this issue first, John.
I agree with the proposed concept of local representation. The huge areas of countryside that have been proposed for national parks will incorporate the areas of perhaps two or three local authorities and a dozen community councils. There would be a conflict of interest. If each community council or local authority were represented, there would be a huge, unmanageable group. We have to be careful in selection.
That is an important point.
You confirmed last time we met that it would be open to a council, in appointing half the members of the national park authority, to appoint someone other than a local councillor—perhaps a representative of a community council.
Absolutely. Identifying a good mix of people with specific local interests will be important. It could be someone with a geographical or sectoral interest or someone who, for example, is based in the park and has a mountaineering interest. It is a matter of getting the balance right. We have set a maximum number of members, so some members might represent one or more interests. The people who are on the first national park authority must be people local communities and organisations can trust. Both the mix on the designation orders and the way in which we get there are important.
I agree with that, but there must be a mechanism to enable people who represent local communities on national park authorities to feed back information about what is happening. It is important that someone who is identified as representing an organisation or a community gives it feedback.
I take on board Sarah Boyack's comments about the number of community councils, but they get together occasionally in community council forums, which could be an ideal vehicle from which to go forward. Community involvement on the national park authority is important. A lot of the success of national parks depends on people believing that the park belongs to them and that they belong to the park.
If there are no further comments under this heading we will move on to planning.
I welcome the fact that ministers are trying to create a flexible system, as we envisage that there will be different kinds of national park in different parts of Scotland.
As I said before, that important matter will be addressed at the designation order stage. It is important to allow flexibility for different areas, rather than having a blanket approach to planning.
I support that approach in principle. It puts the emphasis on the degree of consultation at the point at which the designation powers are introduced. What are your expectations of the consultation process, particularly as it relates to the designation orders and planning powers?
We will move on to that once we have got the bill through Parliament. I expect many community groups and interest groups to focus on the nature of the planning powers that would be appropriate in different park authorities. Another issue would be the extent to which local authority representatives should be involved in the national park authority, were it to have planning powers.
As was the case with the consultation on the primary legislation, would community interests be able to express a view before the publication of the designation order?
I would expect extensive consultation on the designation order. A hefty section of the bill sets out the consultation process and the nature of reports and designation orders. All of that must be carried out in a transparent way because communities will want to be involved in the discussion of the detail of each part.
I missed the first part of your contribution so I do not know if you have already answered the question that I want to ask.
There would have to be extensive publicity to ensure that people were aware of what was being suggested. We have a huge list of interest groups that we have consulted on the bill and on other occasions. It is important to bear in mind that a designation order will be subject to affirmative procedure. That means that the decision on a designation order is not mine: Parliament will have to approve it.
Contrary to what you said about the final decision resting with the Parliament, I understand that, once the designation is laid before the Parliament, MSPs' scrutinising role is over. At that stage, we can only either approve the whole thing or throw it out.
We will be able to take views on board in various ways. For example, after we have published a draft designation order, we will seek views from many people about the contents of the order, which will provide the opportunity for that kind of scrutiny.
Although I understand that, my point is that the Executive will make the decisions after consultation and Parliament will only say yea or nay to them.
I would have to bear in mind the representations that were made to me. Because designation orders will be subject to affirmative procedure, members will have a choice—I do not want members to be unhappy with the designation orders.
Are you saying that we can vote against a plan if we feel that there has been no consultation and that the proposals do not adhere to the legislation?
I would work extremely hard to ensure that I was not put in that position.
I hope that we would never have to do that, but we should bear that in mind when considering new plans. The consultation makes it very clear that if planning happens as it is set out in the bill, we should not be put in such a situation.
I hope that our model shows committee members that we have been rigorous in consulting, collecting feedback and reporting on that process. That is the way to proceed, if we are to address Mike Rumbles's points. Different communities have very strong concerns that need to be acknowledged and, if possible, addressed.
We will now move on to the Gaelic issues that have been raised in the consultation.
Some representations have raised concerns that sufficient prominence has not been given to the Gaelic language. However, I am not sure whether those respondents are referring to the bill's wording or to the use of Gaelic in national parks. The latter is not a great problem, because many villages, rivers, mountains and glens that will be in national parks already have Gaelic names or titles, and I am sure that we will not lose such names.
We would expect each national park authority to consider employing a Gaelic officer and to formulate a response on the way in which they would involve the Gaelic language in their national parks. We might discuss the matter in the context of best practice, in the statutory guidance that we will issue to each national park authority. Best practice would cover the employment of Gaelic rangers and interpretation.
A problem would arise if the Scottish Executive or the Parliament suggested that all national parks should have a Gaelic ranger service, because some areas have no Gaelic background. It would be better left to the local management groups, when they are established, to make up their own minds on how they view the management of parks.
Would it be helpful if reference was made in the legislation to the Gaelic language as part of the culture of the national park areas? It might be helpful if the bill stated that national park authorities would have to consider using the Gaelic language, especially in relation to the Cairngorms and national parks that might lie further north.
I agree. The primary aim of the bill is to promote the natural and cultural heritage of the areas in question. Both areas that have been mentioned so far include at least an element of Gaelic in their cultural heritage, and there is the potential for a future national park to be established even more firmly in the heart of the Gàidhealtachd. A section in the bill that recognised that fact might send out a positive signal.
Are there any other comments on Gaelic issues?
Is Lewis Macdonald suggesting that the Scottish Parliament should make that a statutory obligation, or would he be happy to leave the decision to the local management group?
I am loth to enter into a committee discussion on the matter at this stage. However, I am interested in the minister's views on that. On the basis of her answer to John Munro's first question, I presume that she might be considering this issue in the context of the designation orders rather than in the context of primary legislation.
We have not focused as much on cultural heritage as we have on some of the other national park issues. I do not want to be over-prescriptive at this stage, but that does not mean that we should not highlight this as one of the issues that we expect national park authorities to think about. Local communities might suggest particular perspectives that should be represented in different national parks. My inclination is to follow the model that was suggested by John Farquhar Munro, but we are considering all the comments that we have received to ensure that we acknowledge correctly the importance of Gaelic.
When it is published, is the bill likely to be available in Gaelic?
We have not published any other bills in Gaelic, and something might be lost in translation. I am not sure whether that should be recorded in the Official Report. Publication in Gaelic is not something that we intended to do initially.
If there are no other comments on Gaelic issues, we will move on to the subject of national park plans.
The minister has already answered some of the questions in that category. I would like to take the opportunity to ask her about the consultation process.
The consultation on the national park plan is not just about getting the procedures right, but about ensuring that there is the right spirit in each of the national parks. We must ensure that the process of drafting the national park plan is as inclusive as possible—people must feel that they are part of the process.
You will be aware that there were differing opinions on the strength of the wording, particularly on the duty to "have regard to" the national park plan. Have the results of the consultation influenced or changed your views about the wording?
We have thought about that a great deal. If we were to consider re-writing that section of the bill, we would need an alternative that was both workable and met our intentions. It is not a straightforward issue; it is about finding the right balance. I want to ensure that the final wording of the legislation will have the effect that we intend.
I want to chase up Cathy Peattie's point. Would it possible for you to outline the five most important changes that you have made to the bill—or are about to make—as a result of the consultation process?
I am not sure that I want to pick out five changes. I have flagged up the two key issues that came out strongly from the consultation—aims and appointments. Those are the issues that I have spent most time focusing on. The third issue—planning—is one that we have thought hard about. We have decided that it is an issue for the designation orders, but the consultation has been helpful in our thinking on the way in which we might formulate the designation orders. We are not yet at the stage of having fixed views about each of the national parks. Other minor issues have cropped up, on which we have also been reflecting.
Part of the committee's role is to scrutinise the consultation process. If the consultation process is to be meaningful—I am sure it is—there will be several major changes to the bill as a result of that exercise.
One of the points that I made in my opening remarks is that we intend to follow up the consultation by publishing a commentary on the views that we received that resulted in changes to the bill, and on the views that had not. That would allow people to see how their views have been taken into consideration.
I want to follow up Elaine Murray's point about the obligation to "have regard to" the national park plan. One or two of the consultation papers suggest that it might be possible to extend that obligation beyond public bodies and office holders to include private interests, such as landowners. Is that possible and desirable?
The key thing is to get the right mechanism, whether in requiring an organisation to do something or in ensuring that we can work with an organisation to deliver objectives jointly. The terminology that has been used is right.
Do you think that there could be a specific problem in the Cairngorms, because the partnership already exists and there might be some overlap and, possibly, conflict in the initial phases?
No. That is something that we can resolve. The people involved in the Cairngorms partnership are well informed about the progress of the bill and understand the nature of the discussions. We are looking to resolve that situation later, when Parliament has passed the bill and we make designation orders.
As there are no further comments on that section, we will move on to the general powers of the national park authorities.
One of the issues that concerns me most about the additional, or general, powers is the ability of the national park to open retail outlets. There is concern, particularly in areas that depend on tourism a lot, that the national park outlets will take away trade from already established outlets, such as tea rooms, tourist information centres, gift shops and the like.
We have suggested that we should enable the national park authorities to decide what is appropriate in their areas, as they will be able more effectively to interpret what exists already. Branded goods might be highly appropriate to developing each national park. For example, an interpretative centre might be opened, which might have a gift shop attached. I expect the national park authorities to identify and to consider those issues. The draft bill specifies that, in the national park plan, the national park authority must decide what is appropriate to local needs in each area.
A local person may feel that a business opened by the national park authority competes with a local business. Would that person be able to appeal or in some way override the decision to open that business? I suspect that it would be difficult for an individual to challenge the national park authority.
A variety of mechanisms will be available, of which the planning process is an obvious example. Regardless of whether the national park authority or the local authority is responsible at the local level, people will still retain the right to make observations on any planning proposal—that procedure involves the democratic process. That would be one way in which people could make known their views at the point at which the decision was being taken.
Are there other comments? We will move on to national park advisory groups.
I find the national park advisory groups interesting, minister, as I think that their status and effectiveness will be tied up inextricably with the make-up of and representation on the national parks authority, which goes back to what we were discussing earlier.
The fundamental issue for any advisory group is to fulfil those functions for which it was established. I do not envisage advisory groups as repositories for people who did not make it on to the authority. I am quite clear that the advisory groups and the authority have different roles, different opportunities to involve different groups and a different focus.
I am encouraged to hear about the flexibility that you envisage within the system. I notice that there has been considerable consultation on the number of advisory groups. Could you comment on that? Do you envisage a finite number of groups, or will the number depend on the needs of each national park?
The last time that I spoke to the committee, I said that our legal interpretation was that there may be more than one advisory group. I am thinking about the groups in terms of the legislation—whether it would be helpful to specify that there would not necessarily be only one committee and that different national parks should decide what was appropriate. There has been some confusion over the legal interpretation, which I am keen to clarify in the bill.
Following on from what Alex said, I believe that there is some confusion about the advisory groups. I can see where the perception comes from that the groups would be repositories for disappointed would-be members of NPAs. Have you come to a conclusion about the number and types of advisory groups and what their roles will be? What consultation will there be on that? Who will decide how the advisory groups will be constituted?
It would be up to the national park authorities to identify how great a need there was for different types of advisory boards to assist them in their work.
Would the operation of advisory groups be overseen through the national park plan? Is that how they would be scrutinised?
As I said in my discussion with Alex Fergusson, the national park plan could identify key issues on which there was felt to be a priority need to engage a wider group of people than those in the national park authority. An authority could also do that.
Local people could be actively involved in advisory groups, particularly when such groups are looking at a short-term piece of work that is important to a specific area. Has any consideration been given to the support or tools that local people would need to participate in such groups?
We have some good experience form the Cairngorms partnership, which has focused on involving community groups in the discussions on the way forward for the Cairngorms. Some interesting models have been put in place—for example, there is enthusiasm that young people in the Cairngorms should be involved. There are different formulations for involving different groups in society. That represents good practice, which could be developed in future. We intend to use the statutory guidance to give some ground rules for each national park, so that they do not all need to reinvent the wheel, but there would still be some flexibility.
As there are no other comments under that heading, we will move on to marine national parks.
We have heard little so far about marine parks, although the bill provides for their creation. In some of the submissions, there seem to be two views. One is that those parks should not have been mentioned in the bill at all; the other is that the bill does not contain enough detail on them. That raises the concern that, because marine parks seem to have been tagged on to the bill, they are not receiving adequate debate. What is your response to those submissions? Have you considered taking marine parks out of the bill altogether and having separate legislation and a separate debate on them, given the many complexities that are associated with the matter?
It is not my view that we should take that matter out of the bill. The bill will enable all future national parks to be set up, so it is important that it is broad enough to take on board a variety of circumstances. It is my strong view that some of the comments that have been made on marine parks have been extremely useful, in terms of clarifying everyone's thoughts. The first two parks that we would want to establish are Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and Cairngorms. Thereafter, the process would allow us to identify what other parks it would be appropriate to establish. Certainly, a strong case has been made for marine national parks.
I may be wrong, but I have noticed that a lot of the submissions appear to have come from environmental organisations—mainly non-governmental organisations. Given that the marine parks are a hidden element of the bill, what proactive steps did the Executive take to consult non-environmental organisations that might be concerned about the prospect of marine national parks?
We did not concentrate on talking to environmental organisations; a wide range of organisations were consulted. We did not focus on marine national parks before these discussions, principally because the first two national parks were to be land based. That does not rule out the prospect of extensive consultation if there are to be national parks that are not on land. In England and Wales, there is the experience of the marine national park in Pembrokeshire to draw on. However, our focus in Scotland has been on terrestrial national parks.
I presume that, if you were thinking about designating an area of coastal land as a terrestrial national park, you would rely on the powers in the bill to include marine national parks to extend that park beyond the high water mark. Is that the case?
We think that the bill would make that possible. Such a park might be a terrestrial park, a coastal park or a marine national park—the legislation would allow different options.
In future, might the powers under the bill be directly relevant to the designation of a national park in an island area?
Yes. The same procedures and consultation mechanisms would have to be undergone in any future proposal, and designation orders would be required to be brought before Parliament.
Are there any other comments?
Have we finished with the issue of marine national parks?
We have come to the end of our list, and we are winding up.
I just wanted to mention a general issue. Once the national park is established, in whatever area, it becomes a public place. Several representations have been made to me about the use of firearms in a designated public place. Under the current firearms legislation, it is not permitted to carry a firearm out of its sheath or gun case in a public place. That is an issue that we should address, in case it creates problems for us in the future.
I note that point.
I have one other point. The Scotland Act 1998 was published bilingually and I see no reason why this bill should not be afforded the same status.
I have a question to finish off with. Is there any indication when the full consultation will be available for publication?
Yes. Today we will place copies of all the responses to the consultation in the library at the Scottish Executive and in the Scottish Parliament information centre. Those responses provide an interesting read and I commend them to everybody.
I offer the thanks of the committee to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, and to Andrew Dickson, Jane Hope and Neil MacLennan for attending this meeting and for helping us in our continuing study of the issues surrounding the National Parks (Scotland) Bill.