Environment and Rural Development Committee, 14 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Official Report 234KB pdf

---

Petition

---

National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE1011)

Our final item is consideration of petition PE1011, from Ian MacKinnon, on behalf of Action Against Marine Park, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 to require approval by a majority in a local referendum before any national park can be established. Members have a copy of the petition and a background note from the clerk.

Unfortunately, the petition was referred to us too late to be incorporated in our marine environment inquiry. We now have limited time left in this session, and we need to decide how we will deal with the petition. My feeling is that the petition is more about the consultation process than the marine environment. I suggest that we write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, asking which organisations were consulted, why they were chosen and why community councils, for example, were not consulted. We can also ask what other opportunities there will be for consultation as the process rolls out. We will want some fairly detailed explanations from the minister. Are members content with that as a first step?

Members indicated agreement.

We should ask the minister what the Executive has done to inform the communities that could be affected by the national park of any possible benefits to their areas. It is right that people who are suspicious of the idea and who are protesting against it should have a voice. However, as far as I can see, the consultation—which I have a lot of concerns about—did not try to sell the idea: it was just consultation; therefore, people were left without any idea whether they would get anything out of the park. We should ask the minister what the Executive has done to explain to communities why it is thinking of establishing the national park in the first place.

There is the classic tension between consultation—when things are not written in tablets of stone—and people wanting things to be written in tablets of stone, so that they can say whether they like the idea. Part of the problem is in trying to get across to people the idea that consultation is an iterative process.

Perhaps we can ask the minister to clarify the effect that the establishment of a national park might have on sea industries such as fishing and aquaculture. That might be helpful for the petitioners.

I do not want to open up any controversy. However, there must be lessons that can be learned from the way in which SNH and others operated the processes that were gone through for the land-based national parks in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms. Can we ask the minister if there is any significant difference in the way in which the process has been undertaken this time?

That is fine. Can members think of anything else to put in the letter?

No.

Okay. Our next meeting will be on 21 February at 10 o'clock in committee room 5.

Meeting closed at 12:21.