Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill: Stage 1
Agenda item 3 is the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill. The committee has been appointed as lead committee, and our stage 1 consideration of the bill, which was introduced by John Swinney, begins today. Our task is to consider the bill's general principles and to report to the Parliament, recommending whether those general principles should be agreed to.
There will be a short introductory session with the member in charge of the bill, John Swinney, and his supporting solicitor, Scott Martin. I welcome them to the meeting and thank them for attending.
I invite John Swinney to make a short introductory statement, after which members will have the opportunity to ask questions. I remind members that John will appear before the committee again in a fortnight, at the end of the evidence-taking programme, so I ask them to keep their questions fairly brief.
Thank you very much, convener. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to set out the background to my member's bill. I am also grateful that the committee has been able to consider the bill and that a meeting of the committee has been arranged in Blair Atholl next week, to take evidence from a range of local representatives and organisations.
The purpose of the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill is to extend the boundaries of the Cairngorms national park to include the parts of highland and eastern Perthshire that were omitted from the park in 2002. Let me make it clear that I was a strong supporter of the park's establishment and I continue to support the Cairngorms National Park Authority's work and the park's role within Scotland. My bill is designed not to dilute the authority's work but to enhance it.
In September 2000, ministers made a formal proposal under section 2 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 to establish a national park in the Cairngorms area. Ministers invited Scottish Natural Heritage to undertake the consultation on the proposal and, for 20 weeks, SNH listened carefully to interested parties' views and opinions on the boundaries of the park and the powers, functions, governance arrangements and financial provisions of the park authority.
On boundaries, SNH recommended that the park area should include the central Cairngorms and Lochnagar massifs, as well as many of the straths that immediately surround them in Badenoch and Strathspey, Glenlivet, Donside and Deeside and, crucially, in my constituency, the Angus glens and highland Perthshire. The Government's first response to those proposals largely excluded the areas of my constituency in the Angus glens and highland and eastern Perthshire.
After an inquiry by the Parliament's Rural Development Committee and much pressure from outside the Parliament, the Government revised its proposals and, in the Cairngorms National Park Designation, Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Scotland) Order 2003, made provision for the inclusion of the Angus glens. Unfortunately, highland and eastern Perthshire remained excluded. The Rural Development Committee unanimously recommended the inclusion of highland and eastern Perthshire in accordance with SNH's recommendations, but the Government did not accept that view, and the designation order was approved without their inclusion.
It is important to point out that neither that committee nor the Parliament was able to amend the order. It had to be approved or rejected and, therefore, significant concerns could not be addressed. The boundary issue has remained unresolved and concerns have remained about the exclusion of highland and eastern Perthshire. I have taken a number of steps to tackle the issue. I have pursued it through written and oral parliamentary questions and through a members' business debate to try to change ministers' minds. Ministers have remained opposed to change, and I have opted to pursue a member's bill.
I launched the consultation on the bill on 4 November 2005 and distributed it to 34 organisations and individuals in the locality. It was also made available online. The consultation set out the background to the issue and made the case for extending the park's boundaries. Respondents were asked to comment on nine questions that were raised about the park's boundaries and the membership of the park authority. I received 27 responses, which can be viewed at the Scottish Parliament information centre.
On 8 June 2006, a document summarising the responses to the consultation was made available. The majority of respondents felt that extending the boundary would bring economic, social and environmental benefits and would remove anomalies that the current park boundary has created. Respondents felt that expanding the boundaries would enhance the achievement of the national park's aims, as set out in the 2000 act. There was consensus—although, I readily admit, not unanimity—that Perth and Kinross Council would require a seat on the Cairngorms National Park Authority.
I have opted to use the mechanism of a bill to address the issue, as only ministers have the power to introduce a designation order to specify the boundaries under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. The fact that only ministers have the power to propose a modification of the boundary in a designation order is of equal significance.
The bill proposes to extend the Cairngorms national park's boundary to bring in parts of highland and eastern Perthshire. The areas to be added include the forest of Atholl, the community of Blair Atholl, the Beinn Udlamain mountain group to the west of the A9, and an area around the A93 that includes Glas Tulaichean and Spittal of Glenshee but excludes the village of Kirkmichael. The area that the bill proposes to include in the park is set out in a series of 16 boundary maps at 1:50,000 scale that have been deposited with the Scottish Parliament information centre. For the assistance of members, a summary map, which is provided with the policy memorandum, shows the existing boundary and the proposed extension.
I judged that the only practical way of setting out the proposed boundary was to show it on a map. That is a rather unusual parliamentary convention, but I am sure members understand that to have described the proposed boundary by grid references or in writing would have been impractical, and might have resulted in a bill as long as "War and Peace". I was happy to follow the precedent that the Executive set and delineate the boundary by reference to a map.
As a consequence of adding parts of highland and eastern Perthshire to the national park, the bill would allow Perth and Kinross Council to nominate a member to serve on the Cairngorms National Park Authority, the effect of which would be to reduce the number of members appointed by Highland Council from five to four, to ensure that the authority's membership did not exceed 25, as stipulated in the 2000 act.
I estimate that the costs of the bill could be met from the existing resources of the Cairngorms National Park Authority. I estimate that the one-off costs would be in the order of £48,000, which includes £15,000 to revise the national park plan, £5,000 to £6,000 to revise marketing and communication materials, up to £20,000 to change signage, and minor additional costs in relation to the role of board members and other incidental costs.
On operating costs, there would be minor additional burdens, which I do not consider significant. The park itself does not directly employ individuals to provide a ranger service, which is perhaps the most expensive service that could be provided. The bulk of park activity is provided on a project-by-project basis. It would therefore be for the park authority to determine how it allocated its resources, what spending took place in highland and eastern Perthshire, and resulting cost increases. An expansion of the park area would open up revenue opportunities, through planning fees and other matters to do with applications in the expanded area.
As I said, my objective is to enhance the work of the national park. The aims of the national park, which are set out in the 2000 act, are:
"to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area … to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area … to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public, and … to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities."
A number of elements of the bill would support and enhance those aims.
The inclusion of the proposed area would provide a natural gateway to the national park at Blair Atholl—and from Blair Atholl through Glen Tilt—which would substantially enhance visitor access to the park. The proposed boundary would draw together sites of special scientific interest and enable them to be managed through the national park's cohesive management framework. The proposed boundary would enable entire mountain summits to be managed in a more sustainable and cohesive manner over a wider area, which would improve opportunities for the uniform delivery of biodiversity measures. A proposed buffer area, which would be in the control of the national park authority, would be established around the Cairngorms massif. The inclusion of Spittal of Glenshee would enhance visitor access at the southern approach to the park in east Perthshire.
There is a strong and compelling case for the inclusion of highland and eastern Perthshire in the national park. The area is similar in topography to the areas that are included to the north and east. It includes natural gateways to the park at Blair Atholl and through Glenshee. It includes areas of natural character that are worthy of as much protection as are the areas that are already in the park.
The communities of highland and eastern Perthshire want to be part of the Cairngorms national park. I hope that the bill will deliver that result sooner rather than later.
Thank you. I am slightly puzzled. Why have you introduced the bill, given that the quinquennial review of the park will take place in 2008? The boundaries will probably be considered as part of that review.
You raise two issues. First, the park's boundaries have been a source of concern and unease for some time among the communities that I represent. I thought that, having used various means to try to advance the agenda, and having received encouraging support for the concept as a result of consultation, the issue should be pushed up the parliamentary agenda.
The second issue relates to the quinquennial review which, as I understand it, is much more likely to focus on the governance of the national park than on its boundary. Although it might consider the operation of the park, how its internal procedures work, how its board governance arrangements work and how its policies and practices are applied, there will not necessarily be any focus on the issue of the boundary. My judgement was that, given that context, it was important to have the debate at this stage.
I say to John Swinney that I speak as a fellow representative of part of the Cairngorms national park and as a former member of the Rural Development Committee, which considered the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and the subsequent designation orders, so I have followed his campaign with extreme interest. Is it your understanding that the key objection from Government ministers is that a review is coming up, or are there other key objections of which you are aware? Given that it seems a weak objection, I am trying to work out what the Government's other objections might be.
I am sure that Mr Lochhead has seen the letter from Ross Finnie, dated some time in November 2006, that sets out some of the issues. It is not my place to speak on behalf of the Executive, but one of the issues that he raises is the onset of the quinquennial review. As I said to the convener, I am concerned that that review will focus too narrowly on the governance arrangements of the national park rather than on the boundary question. The Executive also takes the view that the park is still bedding down and therefore it would be premature to consider some of the issues now. Financial and other implications are also set out in the minister's letter. On the financial implications, the minister deploys some numbers. The committee will be able to inquire of ministers what those numbers represent, but I can shed no light on them.
This is probably not a fair question to ask you, because it arises from one of the other witness's submissions. You talked about bringing in sites of special scientific interest and having more continuity in respect of the mountain ranges. One of the submissions refers to:
"Abrupt land use management discontinuities".
Can you give an example of that? It is hard to visualise what it means.
The existing boundary means that half a mountain can be in the national park and the other half can be out of it. The boundary crosses mountain summits and, in some instances, it crosses areas of environmental sensitivity. That raises a question about the effectiveness of the management regime that can be put in place to cover the entire area.
I refer to the maps that I have provided the committee with—I do not claim exclusivity, because they show what SNH produced after a tremendous amount of consultation and dialogue with a wide range of interested parties. The objective of the design of the boundary was to cohesively delineate the territory, and thereby allow for an effective and sustainable management regime to be created and put in place. The example of literally splitting mountains in two helpfully illustrates the absurdity of the current boundary.
Does your proposed boundary avoid splitting mountains in two?
Yes, to the best of my ability.
You said that your proposals would naturally involve the inclusion of a representative from Perth and Kinross Council on the national park board. The national park has perhaps worked differently from the way that people envisaged it would work in relation to the role of local government representatives. Would other councils that are represented on the board be disadvantaged if someone from Perth and Kinross Council was included?
I have adhered to the principle that has been applied to the composition of the park authority board as it is today, which is that each local authority that has land within the national park should be able to appoint one or more nominees to the board, which has 25 members, 10 of whom are council nominees. I have accepted that important principle and applied it to the inclusion in the park of parts of the Perth and Kinross Council area that do not currently lie within it.
To enable Perth and Kinross Council to nominate a member to the board, I have proposed the mechanism of reducing the Highland Council's representation on the board from five members to four. I did not want to unpick everything that the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 specified. Under my proposal, the total membership of the board would still be 25. I wanted to change only the provisions that relate directly to the proposed addition to the park of areas of highland and eastern Perthshire, so it was logical to take one seat from the council with the largest number of members on the board and to give it to Perth and Kinross Council.
The board of the park authority has tended to operate as one would expect it to—as a board for the whole of the Cairngorms national park. There has been little—if any—evidence that the work of council nominees has been driven by thoughts such as, "I am a Highland Council person," or, "I am an Aberdeenshire Council person," or, "I am an Angus Council person." I have proposed a modest, peripheral change in the membership of the board, which I do not think would be detrimental to the interests of other authorities. I have sought to sustain the important principle that every authority whose territory falls within the national park should have representation on the board so that it can have buy-in to the workings of the park and can participate in a wide variety of partnership initiatives, as the authorities that currently have representatives on the board do.
Thank you for that detailed explanation.
We will speak to other witnesses in due course, but will we receive submissions from other councils? We do not seem to have done so yet.
We will get them next week.
It would have been helpful to have them now.
Point noted.
I should draw attention to the interest that I declared at last week's meeting, which is that I once served on the Cairngorms working party, a body that preceded the establishment of the Cairngorms Partnership, on which I also served for a short time prior to the setting up of the national park.
I am interested in the boundary that you have chosen. You said in your evidence that it was one that SNH had proposed, but my recollection is that, after the original consultation, SNH put forward three potential boundaries: a tight boundary around the core mountain area of the Cairngorms; one that enclosed a slightly enlarged area, but which excluded parts of the current park; and one that covered an even wider area. That third boundary appears to be the one that you have adopted. You said that parts of the area covered by that boundary had been omitted from the park but, by definition, anything that lies outside the park's boundary—whatever that boundary is—has been omitted from the park. Why have you chosen the boundary that you have chosen?
In your declaration of interests, you mentioned the Cairngorms Partnership. Perth and Kinross Council was always a party to the discussions of the Cairngorms Partnership and the various bodies that were formed to prepare for setting up the national park, which I think were established by the late Secretary of State for Scotland or one of his predecessors. It is not as if Perth and Kinross Council has suddenly come along at the last minute; it was always part of the Cairngorms Partnership that was involved in the foundation work from which the Cairngorms National Park Authority emerged. There was a long five to seven years of history before we got into the formal consultation on the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill, in which Perth and Kinross Council was involved.
My recollection is that the Scottish Natural Heritage report proposed different options, but the recommended final boundary was similar to the boundary that I am proposing. SNH recommended the boundary line that I have set out in the highland and east Perthshire area. At the other end of the national park, SNH did not recommend the inclusion of the Laggan area, but it ended up being included.
My recollection is that SNH's preferred recommendation was for the larger area. In my opening remarks, I referred to some of the arguments that underpinned that preference. One of the strong arguments that pointed SNH to the larger territory was that there should be a buffer zone around the central Cairngorms massif. The maps—even the one in the policy memorandum—show the point quite clearly. There is the central Cairngorms massif, a buffer zone around virtually all the area to the north, east and north-west, as well as at the Angus end of the park, but there is nothing at the Perthshire end. That strengthens the argument that SNH made.
Notwithstanding what you said about SNH, and your argument about Laggan being in the park whereas SNH did not recommended it, do you accept that, whatever boundary we choose, an element of judgment is attached? There is no absolute reason why a boundary should be in a particular place.
For example, you also said that the area that you suggest should come into the park would bring in areas of natural character that are worthy of the same protection as the other areas of the park. I accept that that is your position but, equally, the boundary that you propose excludes Ben Vrackie, which is immediately outside Pitlochry, and Killiecrankie. Are you suggesting that those areas are less worthy of the protection that is afforded by the park than the areas that you suggest should go in? What is the logic for the boundary?
I accept unreservedly that there has to be logic to the boundary. My trouble is that I do not see how that logic applies to the current boundary. If we were to walk west through the territory of the Angus glens, all of which is in the national park, and continue on, we would see no change whatsoever in the topographical pattern of the area, but we would be outside the national park. In the process, we would have cut a few mountains in half and excluded one half from the national park.
In relation to the southern boundary—I pass no judgment on any decisions on any other part of the park—the SNH process was successful in retaining the topographical symmetry in different areas, so that we had an integrated attitude about the components of the national park.
Obviously, there will be areas outside the boundary—Peter Peacock mentioned Ben Vrackie and Killiecrankie—and SNH consulted extensively on that, which brings me back to his point that there has to be a line somewhere. I have tried to apply a logical line—okay, Ben Vrackie is outside it—but if we applied the logic that it is impossible to say where a boundary should be, we would not be able to define a boundary for the Cairngorms national park at all, because something would be outside the line. We have to put the line somewhere. The bill's proposal for the park at the southern end is more logical than the current proposition.
I share your desire to find a logical boundary in all circumstances. However, you have already conceded that it is not always possible to find an absolutely logical boundary. Do you accept that deciding the final boundary involves an element of judgment—on your part and on the part of ministers and SNH? It is not an absolute science.
Because it is not an absolute science, the logic of any boundary should stand up to scrutiny.
The judgment should stand up to scrutiny.
Regardless of whether you call it the logic or the judgment, it must stand up to scrutiny. As I indicated to the committee, if we went on a walk westwards through the Angus glens, we would come to an abrupt, inexplicable line in the sand, which is the county boundary—if I may use such an antiquated phrase—between Angus and Perth and Kinross. The topography, the environment and the nature of the countryside would not change, but the county boundary would get in the way. I submit that there is no logic to that. I have gone around the houses in trying to understand the logic—and even the judgment—that went into making the boundary what it is. After much questioning and sitting through meetings of the former Rural Development Committee, I was not able to find it.
If you and I linked arms and walked south, rather than west as you suggested, what would be the immediate logic of the boundary that you propose? Would the topography not look largely the same on both sides of the boundary? Would not the environmental quality, the species and the habitat diversity be very similar?
The topography begins to change as you go further south. My point is that it does not change as you go west, and that you end up in a very similar environment and countryside.
All the way to Fort William?
No, but the boundary must relate in some way to the long title of the bill.
We do not want to get into the logic of county boundaries, parliamentary constituency boundaries or any other kind of boundary.
I have two brief questions. I hope that John Swinney does not interpret them as indicating any hostility on my part towards the aspirations of the bill.
I want to button down the issue with which the convener started. We have been given an assurance that the quinquennial review that will take place in 2008 may well consider the park boundaries. That is what the Scottish Executive has stated. The member appears to be saying that there is no guarantee that the boundaries will be considered in 2008. Given that the issue seems to be part of the Executive's thinking, why should we deal with it now, when the parliamentary schedule is extremely busy, rather than leave it until 2008?
The park was established by designation order in 2003. I tried in a variety of ways to change ministers' minds in the early part of the session, but I failed, so I had to consider other devices. After exhausting parliamentary questions and members' business debates, I concluded that the only remaining device was a member's bill. As you will appreciate, it takes time to consult on, prepare and introduce a bill. That is the sequence of events that explains why the committee is considering the bill now.
You suggested that the issue could be left to the quinquennial review, but there is an element of doubt about whether the review will consider the boundaries. On 9 December 2004, the First Minister only went so far as to say,
"I hope that that issue will be considered when the review takes place."—[Official Report, 9 December 2004; c 12784.]
That statement is quoted in Mr Finnie's memo to the committee.
As I said, my view is that the quinquennial review is much more about the national park's governance, performance and operation than its components and boundaries. That is why it is important to tackle the issue now, so that the quinquennial review can be informed by Parliament's consideration of the bill.
My other question relates to submissions that we have received. Some submissions from various groups that agree with the extension that you suggest have been very persuasive, but the view in two submissions is that extending the park might take away from its efficacy, because extending the boundaries might mean that it does not operate as well as they believe it is operating now.
One such submission is from a landowner on Deeside. The other is from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland, which is concerned that
"further expansion may water down"
the park's
"current effectiveness."
The institution also says that it has always thought that the A9, which is a major road whose route is unlikely to change, would offer a more sensible topographical boundary to the park than the extension west that you suggest. The institution argues that the park should be kept concentrated and tight rather than extended.
You raise two issues, one of which is whether expanding the park would dilute its effectiveness. I take a completely different view. It is more important to have a cohesive and well designed delineation of territory for the park's operation. I have described the logic to that, which is that there is a central core Cairngorms mountain massif and a buffer zone around it, which does not exist to the southern end of Perthshire. That has driven my view on the delineation of the boundary.
We return to the point that Peter Peacock made in relation to SNH. If a tighter park had been accepted—the proposition was a much tighter Cairngorms massif national park design—vast areas that are in the national park would not have been included. A judgment must be made. We can go for a narrow base or a much larger base. The much larger base was opted for, but it is incoherent.
If the A9 were used as the boundary to the west, the existing boundary would have to be substantially revised. I propose the addition of perhaps 3 square miles of territory west of the A9. Goodness knows how many square miles of territory west of the A9 is already within the Cairngorms national park boundary that Parliament approved. It includes all of the Laggan area, the area to the west of Kingussie and Aviemore and the area further north than that. We return to some of the issues about other attributes of the park's design, such as accessibility—ensuring that people can access the park conveniently and effectively. I suspect that that drove some of the judgments about the design in the western part of the park.
I was not in Parliament when the boundary was first discussed. The memorandum on the legislation to create the national park, which came about after detailed consultation and analysis, is silent on the nature and detail of the decision-taking process. Comments made at the time are included in the appendix to the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing. In particular, Professor Charles Gimmingham said that
"Under the proposals, the interdependence between the core and its surroundings is to be destroyed."
Has the minister addressed that point in any response to you? Do you have any indication from previous debates about the nature and detail of the decision-taking process?
I would make two comments on that. The first is about the consultation process. It is unusual for me to say something like this, but I think that SNH handled the consultation process superbly. It engaged people. Part of the reason why the boundary is still a live issue is that people felt that they had been involved in an excellent process of discussion about the composition of the boundary, what would be in the park and how it would work. They felt involved in the process and were comfortable with what SNH produced, which is not always the case. At the end of the process, however, there was a very different outcome. A lot of good will, public participation and energy were lost because the decision did not support the SNH recommendations, which were the product of a good process that involved local people.
Secondly, on whether I have understood the logic to the argument, the short answer is no. I could point members to one committee meeting on the designation order in which I tried desperately to get an answer to the point I discussed with Peter Peacock about what happens when we walk west out of the Angus glens. I could not understand the rationale for the delineation of the boundary, other than the fact that the boundary line has to go somewhere. I accept that view, but I think that it should go to the right place.
Would it be a good idea for the committee to see the situation on the ground? That does not seem to be scheduled at the moment.
That is a matter for the committee.
If Rob Gibson is proposing that I walk from the Angus glens to Dalwhinnie, he can forget it.
A helicopter would do. Seriously, though, we are talking about things that are theoretical to many of us. To those of us who have some idea of what the landscape looks like, it is a different matter. I wonder whether the committee needs a further view, even from a bus.
I do not know that there are any buses that go from the Spittal of Glenshee to Dalwhinnie. Perhaps we could get some video or photographic evidence to inform the committee. We could certainly explore the options.
I want to come back to the points that John Swinney just made so eloquently about the SNH consultation. To me, it was thorough, wide ranging and inclusive, and it thrashed out all the questions about where the boundary should be and whether certain places should be in or out. SNH went into the questions in detail and got local people involved. I was prepared to trust that the consensus that it won from that process was good, and I was very upset when it was not adhered to.
As Peter Peacock said, there were three suggestions: a tight boundary, a wider one and a wider one yet. The argument for the widest boundary, which roughly speaking is what John Swinney is hoping to achieve through the bill, was presented as the one that might present the Cairngorms and their setting in a way that would make the park more acceptable for consideration for world heritage site status. That is one argument for reconsidering the boundary. You might want to comment on that, John.
I have a couple of practical issues to raise about the consequences of change and the boundaries. First, when do the current local authority nominees demit office? If we are going to change the boundaries and the composition of the national park authority, it would seem sensible to make the change at the same time. That natural break offers an argument for making the change during the current session of the Parliament. Secondly, you have changed the make-up of the nominated local authority representatives, but not of the directly elected local members. Why did the bill not address that? An area that you propose to include in the park will not have local, directly elected representation.
The first point was on world heritage status. That point was advanced as assisting the argument for a larger area that creates a buffer zone around the park. It strengthens the case for arguing that the Cairngorms massif should be well insulated, so to speak, and protected. That argument remains strong—it assists the case.
There were two practical points. First, the local members' term in office concludes on 1 July 2007. Assuming that the bill is enacted within the proposed timeframe, section 3(2) provides for board membership to increase to 26 for a period until 1 July. The provision enables all members to see out their term in office before the new members take over.
Secondly, the bill does not reconfigure ward boundaries. Ministers can do that once the bill is enacted. By my calculation, there are 690 electors in the affected area. Obviously, that is a small minority of the electorate of the entire Cairngorms national park area. The issue can be tackled once the bill is enacted. Ministers have the power to do that.
Richard Lochhead and Peter Peacock have questions. I hope that they can put them briefly.
I wish to make only one point: I support the idea that we visit at least one accessible part of the area to which the bill refers—I am sure John Swinney agrees with that—as that would give us an example of where the topography is similar, either side of the boundary.
I propose that we do two visits—one to the existing boundary and one to the proposed new boundary. That would allow us to see the differences.
I have another, different, issue to raise: the economic impact—the benefits—for Blair Atholl in particular. You spoke about Blair Atholl being the natural gateway to the park. I assume that you see the potential there for economic benefit. You talked about interpretation and orientation. What range of services should be provided in Blair Atholl that is not being provided there at the moment? For example, if Blair Atholl is the natural gateway to the park, should any of the administrative support for the park, which is currently based in Grantown-on-Spey, move to Blair Atholl?
The answer to the latter point is no. The principal office of the authority is in Grantown-on-Spey. I see no argument for relocating that—or any part of it—to Blair Atholl. I do not think that facilities to support interpretation and access would need to be relocated to Blair Atholl. The committee will go to Blair Atholl on Monday and members will see for themselves not only the topography of the area but some of the visitor information and facilities that are available as a result of the efforts of, for example, Atholl Estates and the Blair Atholl area tourism association, sometimes in collaboration with Perth and Kinross Council and other agencies. That infrastructure could undoubtedly be built on.
A strength of how the park authority goes about its business is that the authority tends not to undertake direct provision of services but operates in partnership with others to deliver, for example, visitor services, interpretive services and ranger services. The infrastructure that effective players in the Blair Atholl area currently provide could support the integration of national park related activity.
Thank you for your evidence, which has been useful. The committee will take evidence on the bill from a range of organisations, including local authorities, in Blair Atholl at 2 pm on Monday. Written submissions will be in members' hands shortly. We look forward to the meeting.