National Parks (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. We will follow the same procedure as in our stage 3 consideration of the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill. We will first deal with amendments to the bill and then move to a debate on the question that the bill be passed.
Members should have in front of them the bill, as amended at stage 2—SP bill 12A—the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate, and the groupings that have been agreed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that amendments 17 and 18, which I lodged, have not been selected. Although I appreciate that the Presiding Officer has unfettered power over the selection of such items, the non-selection of the amendments about a local referendum does not comply with the guidance, as the amendments raise a matter of principle that it is important to debate.
You are absolutely right about the duties and responsibilities of the Presiding Officer, Mr Ewing. However, I refer you to paragraph 4.9 of the "Guidance on Public Bills", which says:
"Although the Presiding Officer receives advice from the clerks on aspects of selection, the decisions involved are entirely for him to make, given the political sensitivity they may involve."
The Presiding Officer is perfectly within his rights in this case.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is the second occasion in this Parliament on which members have been denied the opportunity to debate issues of principle. One hundred and twenty-nine people were elected to this Parliament to decide matters, not 11 people in a committee. As this is the second time that this situation has arisen, I invite the Presiding Officer to have the matter reviewed by the Procedures Committee at the earliest opportunity.
As you are aware, Mr McLetchie, it is open to any member, not just the Presiding Officer, to refer matters to the Procedures Committee. You may do so if you wish.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have raised this matter in a letter to the Procedures Committee. I hope that the committee will address the issue after the summer recess.
Thank you for that information.
Section A1—The National Park aims
We move to amendment 1, which stands on its own. I call the minister to move and speak to the amendment.
In the National Parks (Scotland) Bill as initially introduced, the third aim of the national parks was
"to promote understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area by the public".
We have always taken the view that recreation, which will be an important reason for many members of the public to visit national parks, was covered by the word "enjoyment".
However, at stage 2, the Rural Affairs Committee strongly felt that that should be made explicit and that the term "recreation" should appear in the bill. As a result, an amendment from Fergus Ewing was accepted with the Executive's agreement. That gave rise to the current wording of the third aim, which is
"to promote recreation in, and understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of, the area by the public".
Since stage 2, we have examined the wording that results from this amendment more closely. It has become clear that inserting the term "recreation" in such a way does not ensure a link between "recreation"—as against enjoyment—and the special qualities of the area. Amendment 1 guarantees that link while retaining the important term "recreation", and clarifies that the term is included in "enjoyment". National parks will promote enjoyment, including recreation, of the area's special qualities, which refer to the area's natural qualities or natural and cultural qualities. Those qualities are the purpose behind the national park designations.
It is important to take a balanced approach to promoting the enjoyment of the special qualities for which national parks are being established. The importance, attractiveness and contribution of those special natural and cultural attributes to the promotion of enjoyment will be crucial in determining what forms of sport and recreation should be considered in national parks. Above all, it is important that the recreation permitted should be appropriate to, and not detract from, the national park's special qualities. That is why it is absolutely critical to agree to this amendment.
I move amendment 1.
I should start by declaring an interest, which might be shared by my colleague Michael Matheson. At the weekend, we participated in some recreation—the Corrieyairick challenge—in a proposed national park area. Unfortunately, I think that I was bringing up the rear, whereas Mr Matheson was towards the fore.
I am pleased to support the Executive's amendment, which puts in context the importance of recreation in national parks. It was pleasing to see that, at stage 2, my amendment was accepted by the Executive. It is important that, in every national park that is envisaged, recreation is seen as something that is positive and that national park authorities should encourage, with particular regard to the needs of children and those with a disability.
When I first read the amendment I was puzzled, because all it seems to do is to change the wording so that unenjoyable recreation is excluded from the bill. I wondered what unenjoyable recreation might be but—given that I have been on some hill walks where it started to rain when we set off and six hours later we came back not having seen anything from the top of the hill because it was still raining—perhaps that is what the bill is getting at. Having heard the minister's explanation, the SNP is glad to support the amendment.
Fergus Ewing amended this section in committee. I am sure that that is not why the minister has moved to amend the amended section. The amendment was adequately and carefully explained and the Conservatives will support it.
I presume that the minister does not wish to say anything more.
No.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Section 2—Reports on National Park proposals
Amendment 2 is grouped with amendment 5. I call the minister to move amendment 2 and to speak to both amendments.
Amendment 2 inserts at section 2(2) a new subsection, which adds to the list of matters to be considered by a reporter in considering a national park proposal. The new addition covers the financial implications of running a national park in terms of the likely annual costs and capital expenses of the national park authority in exercising its functions.
Rhoda Grant lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, which stimulated a good discussion in the Rural Affairs Committee. We promised her and the committee that we would reflect on the matter and bring forward an appropriate amendment. That is the purpose of this amendment. Finance is an important issue and we agree that the costs of a national park are elements in any decision on the designation of a national park. We have lodged this amendment to make the annual costs and capital expenses of the proposed national park a factor for consideration by a reporter.
Those costs could include the amount of money needed for an estimated staffing level and an estimate of how much money would be required for potential capital projects—for example, how much it would cost for repairs to a section of the west Highland way. Of course, those could only be estimates, as we would be able to have a final budget only when the boundaries and powers of a national park had been identified. Resource estimates could not be set in stone, but it is important that they are made, so that they can inform subsequent debate.
Like any other public body, national parks will be subject to the annual expenditure round when their budgets are agreed. All public spending has to be approved by the Parliament and we have made it clear that the core funding comes from Scottish ministers. That is provided for by the bill.
Amendment 5 mirrors amendment 2 and is required to add consistency to the bill. It ensures that, if Scottish ministers decide to prepare a statement under section 3, they must give an estimate of the likely financial implications for the national park.
I move amendment 2.
I am pleased that the minister has lodged amendment 2. As she said, I had concerns about this matter at stage 2, when I was told that an amendment would be brought forward. I welcome the amendment. Although I find it inconceivable that it would be possible to propose a national park without considering the financial implications, it is important that the bill should include such a requirement.
It would also be helpful to identify the costs of other agencies—for example, local authorities and enterprise companies that work in a national park area. I am talking not about the costs that they might have if they had representation on the park board, but about the additional costs that they might have by providing services within a park area. The report may have to look into that. Identifying such costs might not be possible until the park board is set up, but it should be borne in mind.
I accept the minister's explanation for the amendment. It appeared to be unnecessary, in that the concerns are covered by paragraph (d) of subsection (7), which refers to
"such other matters relating to the proposal as the requirement may specify".
In a sense, therefore, the amendment is declaratory. However, it helps that it is made clear that the financial implications for the park authorities will be specified in the bill.
Rhoda Grant made a good point about laying out the requirement to specify some of the costs to local authorities. Especially in instances when planning powers are split between local authorities and park authorities, there may be additional costs. The entire function will not be passed over to park authorities, which may have financial and other implications for local authorities. It would be useful if additional costs to local authorities were identified and laid out at the report stage.
On the declaratory element of the amendments—both of which we will accept—there are also declaratory elements in the wording of section 9. When we come to debate what the bill says about community councils, we will argue that there are instances where an element of declaration of intent is helpful, not only in providing good legislation, but in ensuring that there is good understanding of that legislation.
I welcome the provisions. In future, those who oppose the establishment of a national park may use the financial consequences as an argument against it. It is useful that financial information will be available to lance such an argument in advance.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment 21 is grouped with amendments 22, 3, 4, 23, 24, 6, 14, 25 and 19. I call Ben Wallace to move amendment 21.
It is important to involve local communities at the initial stages of the proposals for national parks. Community councils should be involved, not only in the process of consultation, but from the outset, when the reporter puts down the outline.
Although I acknowledge that amendments 22 and 24 are no longer appropriate—I will not move them—I lodged amendments 21 and 23 to ensure that, from the outset, the reporter informs community councils about any national park proposals.
I move amendment 21.
By saying that he will not move amendments 22 and 24, Ben Wallace has stolen my thunder somewhat. The declaration of intent that Murray Tosh referred to already exists in the requirement for consultation with community councils and in the requirement placed on local authorities to make the proposals available for public inspection.
As an addendum to that, many opportunities are presented by the use of information and communications technology. We have debated the use of ICT in public services at other times—I hope that national park plans and so on will be made available on the internet, so that members of the community can access them and comment on them.
When we discussed this matter at the Rural Affairs Committee, Ben Wallace was unable to attend—I believe that there was a clash of dates with the European Committee. I did not press the amendments because, in a full and helpful discussion, ministers indicated—I think that it was Mr Stephen who took the debate at that point—that the Executive would lodge an amendment at stage 3 to address the points of concern expressed by the committee.
Our principal concern was that, in circumstances in which, for whatever reason, relationships are not good between community councils and local authorities, we felt that it would be appropriate for community councils to be involved to the extent that they had the right to receive a copy of all the proposals directly from the Scottish Executive, rather than through the good offices of the local authority. I spoke of having been a community councillor under a local authority that did not involve community councils in much of what was going on.
I assume that amendment 3 is the Executive's way of dealing with that concern and that it will specify that community councils are to be involved. If that is what it means—and if it has that effect—I welcome the amendment. I still cannot grasp what is wrong with specifying in the bill an entitlement for community councils to be given the report up front as an obligation on everyone else involved in the process. Community councils are part of the statutory system of local government; they are an important form of local representation and local lobbying. There is something peculiar about not including them as of right, especially as they are mentioned in other respects in later sections of the bill.
I ask ministers to consider whether there is merit still in what Ben Wallace has proposed by the simple insertion of the requirement that the reporter must send a copy of the report to every local authority and community council. What is desperately wrong with that? Is not that a reasonable thing to ask for? I ask ministers to give further consideration to the matter.
I understand the point that Ben Wallace and Murray Tosh are making, especially as community councils are referred to in a later section of the bill, as has been said. I suspect that the argument hinges on the balance of precisely how much bureaucracy one actually builds into the bill. There is perhaps a danger of building in too much, and I would be interested to hear whether that is one of the minister's objections to amendment 21.
I do not think that anyone would make the accusation that the process of consultation in the bill is anything other than open. There is no problem with that process that especially needs to be addressed. I suspect that the amendments may just be a step too far, but I would be interested in the minister's explanation of why she does not wish to accept the amendments.
The amendments are not appropriate. The bill as it stands is much better. The subparagraph that amendment 22 seeks to replace says that the reporter must, on receipt of the National Park proposal, consult
"every community council any part of whose area is within the area to which the proposal relates".
That is much stronger than the amendment.
On a point of order. It may assist Mr Rumbles if he were to realise that the amendment to which he is addressing his remarks is the one that Mr Wallace indicated he would not move. We are, in fact, pressing only those amendments that insert "and community council" after the words "local authority".
I appreciate that, but the same point tends to apply.
Ben Wallace was not at the Rural Affairs Committee—nor, I believe, was Alasdair Morgan—when it was said that the amendments would put increased responsibilities on community councils. I will be interested to hear what the minister says about that.
I will address Ben Wallace's amendments first. I assure him that we have thought about the issues that are raised by his amendments, but we remain of the view that the amendments are not necessary. Further than that, we believe that the amendments would have serious disadvantages. I will pick up on all those points, but I want first to provide the reassurances that Ben Wallace needs. I hope that he will then be able to agree not to press his amendments.
The aim of Ben Wallace's amendments is to ensure that community councils will receive copies of the consultation documents that the bill provides for. There is no legal necessity for a requirement that a copy of the consultation document be sent to a community council, or any other consultee. Community councils, along with others, are specified in the bill as consultees. The legal position is quite clear. The essence of consultation is communication of a genuine invitation to seek advice and comments, giving a fair time to respond and giving genuine consideration to such comments. For consultation to be real, sufficient information about the proposal must be given to inform a considered response. The bill achieves that as it stands.
I take the point, made by Alasdair Morgan, about cluttering up the bill with amendments that are not required. If further reassurance is required—as I suspect that it is—I should add that Executive amendment 3 provides for Scottish ministers to issue directions to a reporting body about the conduct of its consultation. I am happy to confirm that we will use that to remind any reporters of their duties in respect of sending consultation documents to statutory consultees. The reporter will be required to do that, not the local authority. That clarification might be helpful to Murray Tosh.
I will focus briefly on what the drawbacks of Ben Wallace's amendments would be. The local authorities receive a copy of the proposal and the requirement under section 2(5)(a) because they are under a statutory duty to make them available for public inspection; community councils are not. Executive amendment 4 makes the link explicit and clear.
A requirement on the Executive to send a copy of a proposal and a requirement to community councils would raise the question why that requirement was in the bill, given that it is not stated in respect of other consultees mentioned in the bill or in other statutes. Singling out community councils for special mention creates a legal implication that there is no corresponding requirement in relation to other consultees.
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that, when a planning authority has prepared a structure plan, it must consult any other planning authority likely to be affected by the plan before submitting it to Scottish ministers for approval. There is no requirement to send a copy of the plan to the consultees, but it would be inconceivable that that would not be done or that the consultees would stand for it not being done.
I hope that I have reassured Ben Wallace that community councils are already guaranteed copies of the consultation documents provided for in the bill. That guarantee comes from the bill's provisions and from the directions that we will give to the reporters through amendment 3.
I suspect that the consequences of Ben Wallace's amendments are entirely unintended. However, they could have damaging knock-on effects for other parts of the bill and other legislation. I hope that he will agree not to press his amendments.
Executive amendment 3 will ensure that consultations undertaken by the reporters on a national park proposal have the confidence of those who will participate in them. The amendment is the Executive's response to amendments that were lodged at stage 2 by Rhoda Grant and John Farquhar Munro, who proposed that the consultations should be fully participatory and undertaken on the basis of the planning-for-real exercises. Amendment 3 allows the Scottish ministers to issue directions to the reporters, with which they must comply, on how the consultations are to be carried out.
We already have a compact agreement with the voluntary sector, which details the Executive's policy and guidance on consultations with that sector. The compact agreement provides the basis for the directions that will be given to the reporters and commits the Executive to consult the voluntary sector through a range of good-practice measures. Those measures include: planning consultations with the voluntary sector; taking account of the full range of different types of consultation process; taking soundings early in the process; and setting a minimum period of three months for all consultations, which is a practice that we have adopted throughout the bill.
The agreement also makes commitments to consult widely, to give due consideration to all responses and to pay particular attention to those most affected by the proposals. The compact agreement is widely available and I assure all members that the directions that will be given to the reporters will have to adhere to the commitments made in that agreement.
Having given those commitments and assurances, I hope that everyone who is affected by the consultations will have confidence in their integrity.
I move amendment 3.
No, minister—you are speaking to amendment 3.
Amendments 4, 6, 14 and 19 are technical amendments to sections 2, 3, 5 and 11 respectively. We have lodged those amendments after considering the discussion at stage 2 on a group of amendments lodged by Ben Wallace. I hope that members find the Executive's amendments satisfactory. We have considered the points made when Ben Wallace's amendments were discussed at stage 2 and, having done so, I recognise that the bill's provisions were probably not as clear as they were intended to be. I hope that our amendments will clarify matters.
I will focus on section 2 as an example, in order to explain the point. The bill is drafted in such a way as to deal separately with three distinct strands of the process that is set out in section 2(5), in order to create clear and separate duties. Subsection (5)(a) and subsection (6) provide for the public inspection of consultation documents. Subsection (5)(c) requires the consultation to be publicised and subsection (5)(d) provides for the act of consultation. Subsection (6) requires the local authority to make copies of the national park proposal available for public inspection. That is a sensible way of ensuring that, despite all the other ways of publicising the consultation, everyone has access to the documents. The bill achieves that by referring back to subsection (5), which includes, among other provisions, a duty to send the consultation document to all relevant local authorities. However, the reference to subsection (5) must be more precise.
I know that Ben Wallace has agreed not to press a couple of his amendments, but I hope that, with the assurances that I have given in those detailed comments, he will agree not to press any of them. We have considered in great detail the comments made by a number of members at stage 2 and I hope that the Executive's package of amendments will deliver what every member of the Rural Affairs Committee wanted.
I move amendments 4, 6, 14 and 19.
Let me clarify this. Only one amendment is moved at a time. The other amendments will be moved later at the appropriate time. Amendment 21 has been moved. Ben Wallace will have to tell us what he wants to do with it.
Having heard the minister's assurances, and in addition to not pressing the amendments that I mentioned, I would like to withdraw amendment 21, as well as amendments 23 and 25.
You can tell me about the others later. I am interested only in amendment 21. Are you asking leave to withdraw amendment 21?
Yes.
Amendment 21, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 22 not moved.
Amendment 3 moved—[Sarah Boyack].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
I realise that members are not allowed to raise a point of order during a division, but my understanding is that the logical consequence of amendment 21 being withdrawn is that amendment 3 must be agreed to.
I listen only to what members say. If members shout "No", I must call a division. I will not intrude into private grief. There will therefore be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 98, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendments 4 and 5 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Amendments 23 and 24 not moved.
Amendment 6 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—
Section 5—Making of designation orders
We come now to the group for which the lead amendment is amendment 7.
Amendment 16 is the major Executive amendment in this group. The rest of the Executive amendments are minor and technical, and are intended to add clarity to the bill.
In the original draft bill it was proposed that there should be only four stages in the designation process: the initial national park proposal, a public consultation on that proposal, a published report and, finally, the laying of a draft designation order before Parliament. In response to concerns expressed by the Rural Affairs Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee, the Executive introduced amendments to the bill at stage 2 and the further amendments that are before members today, to strengthen public consultation and the involvement of Parliament in the process.
There will now be six stages in the designation process, and at certain points there will be strengthening of those stages. The first stage is now the initial national park proposal, on which there will still be public consultation, to be followed by a published report. Then come the new stages that we have introduced. The proposed designation order will be published, and there will be a public consultation on it. There will be a duty on ministers to take into account the views received during that consultation. Ministers will then have an opportunity to amend the proposed designation order before finalising it. Finally, there will be a statement or a report on the consultation to Parliament and the draft order will be laid.
It is clear that there have been significant changes to and strengthening of the public consultation process and the involvement of Parliament in it. Section 5 of the bill was amended at stage 2. The Executive amendment at that stage, which was lodged in response to the concerns that I have described, provided for a wide consultation on the proposed designation order. Previously, as I have said, there was nothing of that nature in the bill. In the light of comments received on the proposed designation order, the Scottish ministers could amend the order prior to laying it before Parliament for consideration as an affirmative instrument. The Parliament will, therefore, have an opportunity to consider the statutory instrument. The 12-week consultation process provides the public with an opportunity to make comments and for any relevant parliamentary committee to take evidence and report its views. It is important to underscore that. The Rural Affairs Committee and other committees will have an opportunity to get involved in the consultation process. It will be for them to decide whether they wish to get involved and, if so, how.
Amendment 16 is an additional Executive amendment being brought forward today to give further strength to the consultation process. It puts a duty on the Scottish ministers to lay a statement on the consultation at the same time as they lay the final proposed designation order—the draft designation order as it will technically be known. This statement will include the views and comments received in the consultation process and how, if at all, the draft designation order has been amended in the light of consultation comments. This ensures that there is transparency in the process. It will help to inform the debate in Parliament when it is deciding whether to approve the draft designation order through the affirmative process.
Amendment 9 puts right an omission from the Executive amendment at stage 2. It ensures, in keeping with consultation provisions elsewhere in the bill, that when the Scottish ministers go out for consultation on a proposed draft designation order, a copy of the draft is laid before Parliament.
As I have said, the rest of the amendments in this group add clarity to the bill. They describe draft designation orders, which are sent out for consultation, as proposed draft designation orders to distinguish that stage of the draft from the affirmative draft laid after the consultation process has been completed.
I have extensive notes on amendment 28, in the name of Mr MacAskill. Unfortunately, he was not present during the stage 2 debate on this issue, when a similar amendment in his name was moved by Irene McGugan. I will keep my remarks short and say that, in my opinion, what Kenny MacAskill and the Subordinate Legislation Committee were trying to achieve has, in essence, been achieved by the Executive amendments that have been brought forward at stages 2 and 3.
I appreciate that Mr MacAskill is going about the process in a different way, but we have now provided for a wide consultation process on a proposed designation order, before the designation order is formally laid before Parliament. I hope that Parliament will agree that this process is the right way to go about it. There are some differences in what Kenny proposes, but we have moved a long way from what was proposed at stage 1.
I move amendment 7.
I will comment on amendment 16, which is the main amendment. It is important for the integrity of the consultation process that this amendment is accepted by Parliament.
I will make one additional comment. In future, when the Executive publishes the reasons why changes were not made after the consultation process, could those reasons be publicised? Past experience has shown that it is helpful if the reasons for not doing something that becomes a major issue in the consultation process can be explained.
We welcome all the steps that have been taken to ensure that consultation should be as wide as possible when we consider the designation orders and that that consultation should engage the public. However, it is most unfortunate that the Executive has not accepted the case for there to be the ultimate form of consultation, by asking the people who live and work in a national park area whether they agree that they see the benefits of a national park.
I will give way in a minute, minister. Members in this chamber may not realise that there are no fewer than 17,100 people in the Cairngorms Partnership area—that is a lot of people. I believe that the ultimate form of consultation is a referendum. Anyone who is a democrat—whether a Liberal Democrat or any other type—must welcome the possibility of holding a referendum to ask people whether they agree that they wish to be part of a national park. That is true consultation.
I will be happy to give way to the minister, who will no doubt explain why he is not in favour of this aspect of democracy.
It is important to remember that we are talking about national parks rather than local parks.
The issue was fully debated at stage 2, at which time there was an opportunity for Mr Ewing to put across his arguments in favour of a referendum. As I recall, the result of the vote on the matter—which members of the SNP took part in—was eight to zero against having a referendum.
I must correct the minister: the vote was not as he said. I believe that there were two votes from my colleagues in favour of a referendum. I have since become aware that members of another party would have been minded to support the idea if it had been permitted for debate today. I accept the Presiding Officer's ruling, but I will say that it is unfortunate that we do not have the opportunity to debate matters of principle at stage 3.
I do not want to dwell on the matter, as the point has already been made. A referendum would have been a positive process and, if the Executive had taken advantage of it, the national park proposal would have started off with the opportunity of securing the endorsement of the people who must accept the benefits or otherwise of national park status.
Amendment 28 seeks to ensure adequate democratic scrutiny in this chamber. It is meant to enhance the input of Parliament and parliamentarians. For the benefit of the Executive, I will say that it seeks to do so within the bounds of the existing Scotland Act 1998. It does not detract from the Executive amendment; indeed, it adds to and complements it. It ensures greater scrutiny and interaction from the Parliament. The Executive amendments ensure greater interaction and scrutiny from the public. We are trying to replicate the opportunity for parliamentarians to take part in the consultative process before matters proceed.
I am speaking to the amendment not as a member of the SNP but as the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. This is not a committee amendment, but I point out that the suggestion for a super-affirmative procedure was carried unanimously in the committee and continued to receive the complete support of the committee even upon review at later stages.
I should indicate that subordinate legislation is an important part of the democratic process. If every matter that we deal with had to go through stages 1, 2 and 3 in the Parliament, we would make no progress. Clearly, there is a need for speedy methods of dealing with matters that will not be opposed in any way. I do not want to rehash the arguments about whether national parks should have proceeded by way of enabling legislation. The fact is that subordinate legislation is, in the main, non-contentious. That is shown by the number of occasions on which members of the Parliament have used their powers to move against any statutory instrument that has appeared.
A problem arises only when enabling legislation is used for matters that will be complex. We will spend all afternoon on this bill. We have had debates on the bill in numerous committees and in this chamber. The difficulty is that we have not yet decided where a national park will be, what its boundaries will be, what its geography and domain will be, who will be a member of the national park's authority, nor how those members will be elected. Many important issues still have to be examined.
There has to be local democratic input, but there also has to be a way for those who represent areas that are not in the park area to progress matters and participate. That will not conflict with the ability of the Executive to move matters speedily and with efficacy; it will still be able to do that. Even with a super-affirmative procedure, this Parliament will be left only with the ability to say yes or no to a proposal, either to move against it or to accept it.
My amendment would focus matters for representatives of all airts and pairts of Scotland. I welcome the additional mechanisms to provide consultation at local level, but I believe that members of this Parliament should also have the opportunity to take part in the consultative matters. That will ensure that, when subordinate legislation goes through this Parliament, it will be focused. We will know what people are commenting on and will have before us the Executive response. Members will still be left with either a yes or a no, but at least they will have a better view of what is being debated.
This amendment enhances the democratic process—and the democratic nature of this Parliament—and adds to the powers that we should have. It does not detract from the ability of the elected Executive to process speedily matters for which it has already obtained the enabling powers.
As a rule, I try never to agree with Kenny MacAskill in this chamber: it makes for a livelier debate when I do not. However, this afternoon I support Mr MacAskill's amendment. It is not an SNP amendment, but one that he is moving in his capacity as the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
In many respects, it is a great pity that we have to go through the stages of primary and secondary legislation to establish only two or—at the outside, and allowing for a few more years to pass—three national parks. We have debated that issue in the Transport and the Environment Committee, and the reasons for it are well known. Nevertheless, the fact is that this Parliament has surprisingly little direct input into the ultimate process.
I am not detracting in the slightest from what Nicol Stephen said in his opening remarks. It is clear from the amendments that the Executive lodged at stage 2 and this afternoon that it has listened to what was said on that point at stage 2 in the Transport and the Environment Committee, and that it has taken those views into account. I am happy to support the amendment that Nicol Stephen has spoken to this afternoon, along with the other amendments that have been lodged—not least amendment 9, which provides for the laying of documentation before the Parliament.
When we debated this issue in the committee, I moved a couple of amendments that were designed to bring the report before the Parliament, not in the sense of laying it before the Parliament—which would mean only that we would receive another booklet in our mail—but to seek the endorsement of the Parliament by resolution. The aim of my amendments was not to frustrate the Executive's intentions, nor to operate in a hostile manner toward the bill, but to draw the Parliament further into the process and to give its parliamentarians a greater say.
This debate has been substantially shaped by 11 members, plus a couple of visitors to the Rural Affairs Committee. Some might say that this bill has been substantially shaped by one member, whom I presume will speak to further amendments later this afternoon. The rest of the Parliament has not been deeply engaged in the processes or debates. My fear about using subordinate legislation as the means to implement all the details at later stages is that the Parliament as a whole will not engage in the debate and will not be fully aware of the issues. At the final stage, when it is necessary to approve a statutory instrument, relatively few people will have been engaged in that process.
Mr MacAskill's amendment, which is not hostile in any way, would allow the Parliament a greater role and would require the Executive to listen and respond to the points that members make. As Kenny pointed out, there is no procedure for the Parliament to amend the designation order stage by stage. Amendment 28 will allow concerns to be expressed more clearly at the designation order stage, and will give local members—who might have serious points to make about the precise designations of boundaries and powers—the opportunity to bring those concerns before the Parliament. At that stage, the Parliament could be informed and involved, and its support could be sought in attempting to influence the final orders.
That is what is at stake here. The amendment is not trying to spike the national parks or frustrate the Executive's intentions—I repeat: I accept the Executive's amendments and commend them—but is about involving the Parliament and giving it a greater say. Kenny MacAskill has made a good point this afternoon. If, in the spirit of the consultative steering group principles, ministers are genuinely seeking to share the power, this is an area in which they should seek to share the power with the Parliament. There is nothing in amendment 28 that ministers need to fear, but there is a lot to commend it. Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 28 when Mr MacAskill moves it.
It is unfair to suggest that only a small number of individuals have been involved in the development of these proposals, as a wide range of MSPs and others have been involved. Members who were not members of the Rural Affairs Committee or the Subordinate Legislation Committee attended meetings on the bill. Many of them spoke eloquently and at great length at those meetings. We should recognise that the bill is the result of a very wide consultation process and that it has been met by a great deal of unanimity. There is a high level of support across Scotland for the proposals. We should welcome that.
The issue is whether we should go further than the current procedures go. I have explained that we have gone far further than was envisaged at stage 1. There has been a significant move. A whole new stage has been introduced and the level of public consultation has been widened. The issue is whether we adopt what has been called a super-affirmative procedure. Such a procedure has been used only very rarely. In the instance of which I am aware, it gave very sweeping and wide-ranging powers to ministers. I do not think that it is appropriate in every instance, although it is up to Parliament to judge when it is appropriate.
There is no doubt that the Parliament will wish to return to this issue. It will be discussed by the Procedures Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I have no doubt that over time, and quite appropriately, the procedures of the Parliament will develop. For the purposes of the bill, we have gone a long way to answer the concerns that exist.
The minister said that one of his objections to the super-affirmative procedure was that it gave sweeping powers to ministers. I do not understand how that can be an objection to amendment 28. Rather than giving sweeping powers to ministers, that amendment gives Parliament some way of checking those ministers. Can the minister come up with a better argument?
Alasdair Morgan misunderstands me. The super-affirmative procedure was introduced in a Conservative piece of legislation. Ministers were given sweeping discretion by that legislation to introduce statutory instruments that affected existing legislation. Therefore, the extra reassurance of the super-affirmative procedure was introduced. The bill is a different kind of legislation, for which a super-affirmative procedure is not necessary but for which the wide-ranging consultation process that we have introduced is entirely appropriate.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendments 8 to 14 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Mr MacAskill].
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 38, Against 63, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Amendments 15 and 16 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Designation orders: further provisions
We move to amendment 30, which is grouped with amendments 37, 41, 42, 43, 45, 27, 48, 53, 55, 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67 and 68.
Legislating for national parks is one of the first major achievements of the Scottish Parliament and addresses an issue that could not be addressed in the 50 years since equivalent legislation was passed south of the border. The National Parks (Scotland) Bill has cross-party support and was agreed to unanimously at stage 1. As we have agreed the key principles of the bill, it can be seen that many of the stage 3 amendments are technical. Indeed, the 15 amendments in my name on the membership of the national park authorities have been lodged to ensure that what the Rural Affairs Committee agreed at stage 2 is translated into effective legislation.
Presiding Officer, you will remember that when the Rural Affairs Committee produced its stage 1 report, it said:
"The committee agrees that the principle of direct representation of local community interests should be guaranteed, and distinct from both the local authority nominees and those directly appointed by Ministers."
Those words were chosen very carefully and were endorsed by every member of the committee, from all four parties. We came to that clear conclusion as a result of carefully analysing the consultation process and by taking evidence from witnesses.
At stage 2, to achieve the aims of our stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs Committee decided to support my amendment to ensure that 20 per cent of the members of national park authorities would be elected directly by local people. Local representation was the most contentious issue identified by the Executive's consultation process. Part of my constituency lies in the area of the proposed Cairngorms national park and many of my constituents have approached me directly on the issue. My proposals for direct elections to secure local support for national parks are radical—an innovative departure from the normal way in which quangos are set up. I am convinced that such innovation will be successful. Is not our new Parliament radical and innovative? Is not this a manifestation of our new approach to doing things differently and better?
It took some people longer than others to come round to accepting the proposals and to recognising that the committees of this Parliament have a genuine, major role to play in the formulation and improvement of legislation. As we come to the end of the legislative programme in the first year of the Parliament's having its powers, what better example have we than this bill for demonstrating the effectiveness of the committee system? By instituting the direct election of at least 20 per cent of the membership of a national park authority, the Rural Affairs Committee has shown that radical improvements can be made to legislation.
There are concerns that direct elections could lead to politicisation, so I have framed my amendments to allow ministers flexibility in the practical arrangements for local polls. It is very important that those arrangements make it clear that politicisation should be avoided. I hope that the minister will comment on that.
I thank my colleagues on the Rural Affairs Committee for supporting my amendments at stage 2, and I hope that the Parliament will support my further technical amendments in this grouping today. I express my sincere thanks to ministers of both parties for giving their full support to the amendments that are before us. They are designed to ensure that the changes that the Rural Affairs Committee accepted at stage 2 are implemented properly and that the National Parks (Scotland) Bill becomes an effective, successful piece of legislation.
I move amendment 30.
I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak at this stage, Presiding Officer. There are a number of amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles that the Executive supports, and it would be helpful to explain them in more detail at this point.
The majority of the amendments relate to the direct election of at least a fifth of the total number of members of the national park authority. On 13 June, at stage 2, the Rural Affairs Committee agreed to a number of amendments requiring direct elections for a fifth of the membership of the authority. Today's amendments refine those amendments and lay the foundation for a workable scheme of elections to be set out in subordinate legislation at a later stage.
The first substantive amendment is amendment 43, which increases the maximum number of members of a national park authority to 25. That is simply to recognise the arithmetical reality. If a fifth of the membership of an authority is to be directly elected, it is preferable for the maximum number of members to be divisible by five, and for the remaining number—20—to be divisible by two, to reflect the equal split between local authority and Scottish minister representation.
Amendment 45 reshapes subparagraphs (2) to (2D) of paragraph 3 of schedule 1, in order to make it clearer who would be entitled to vote in the direct elections—in other words, the local government electors of the national park area.
Amendment 53 inserts after paragraph 3 of schedule 1 a new paragraph containing further provisions about what an order that sets out a scheme of elections would contain. Those provisions are deliberately wide ranging, as, if the amendments are passed, the Executive will wish to consider carefully and to consult very widely on the detail and the kind of electoral system to be put in place.
The order-making power contains general provision about elections and candidates, with particular regard to such matters as the conduct of elections—whether postal or in person—the registration of electors, possible combination with other elections, dates of polls, appeals against the outcome of an election, and other similar matters.
Can the minister confirm that ministers will use that power to prescribe maximum limits of expenditure for each candidate? That concern was expressed by the Highland Council and by others. It is felt that some wealthy voluntary organisations might be able to take advantage of the system if such expenditure limits are not in place.
The answer to Fergus Ewing's question is yes, as I shall outline shortly.
It is not essential for all the issues that I have mentioned to be covered by a particular order. Different orders could make different provisions, and could give different solutions for each park.
The remainder of the amendments lodged by Mike Rumbles are technical and consequential on the main provisions. At stage 2, Mike Rumbles argued successfully in favour of the principle of a system of direct elections for some of the national park authority members. That was in response to widespread concern about the need for the greater involvement of local people in the running of each park. Direct elections are not the only way of achieving that aim, and the Executive amendments that were lodged at stage 2 remain, allowing for 20 per cent of the overall membership of the national park authority to be local members.
I do not want to comment in any detail on the kind of elections that might be introduced. This is a new concept and we must have full consultation, as people will have different ideas about how elections should be carried out. However, I should mention one or two general principles that are appropriate and that the Parliament can agree with.
In the main, we should try to depoliticise the elections and we should also avoid their being dominated by individual interest groups or individuals with significant wealth. We want to make them more like community council or school board elections. There should be appropriate limitations on expenditure. In Mike Rumbles's initial proposals, there would have been a close link between the elections and the date of the local authority elections. For some of the reasons that I have mentioned, I am glad that he is willing to break such a link.
We should carefully consider whether postal voting would be preferable to a system based on voting in person. Pilot schemes for all-postal local authority ballots in other parts of the UK, as recommended by the Howarth committee, have been considered very successful, particularly in increasing the proportion of the electorate voting. That can only be a good thing, and we will consider the possibility very carefully.
National parks are unique in many respects. In particular, they will be able to take over a number of functions that are currently discharged by local authorities. That is part of the correct justification for including an elected element.
It is probably appropriate for me to address the issues raised in Ben Wallace's amendment now, as that will avoid the need for me to make any final comments before we move on from this group. Amendment 27 would require at least two of the local people appointed to the national park authority to be representatives of community councils. Existing provisions on local members already allow for the possibility of members of community councils to be appointed as members of the national park authority. We fully accept the logic of the argument that community councils should have considerable influence on the membership of national park authorities, as indeed on other matters concerning the national park. The bill contains extensive provisions on consultation with community councils. However, a requirement for two of the local members to be members of community councils is over-rigid and would be difficult to meet in areas where community councils are not strong or well organised. Furthermore, it might lead to certain geographical imbalances. It is not clear how we would identify people who are, as Ben Wallace phrases it, "representative" of community councils. As a result, we cannot support amendment 27.
We are all glad that the Government has accepted the principle of elected members on the national park authority. We all saw the danger of an us-and-them culture growing as the parks were established, with some perhaps seeing the national park as having been imposed on the people living in the area. Fergus Ewing tried to introduce the idea of a referendum to get round that problem. Certainly the introduction of direct elections will help to minimise the danger of conflict between two groups of people.
More important for the future, we have gone some way towards creating a precedent that will lead to the end of the quango culture in Scotland. If members can be elected to a national park authority, why cannot members be elected to health boards and the other dozens of quangos throughout Scotland? If the national park authority is a success, that idea will be carried forward.
The fact that Mike Rumbles lodged one or two amendments in committee and has now had to lodge a dozen perhaps more complicated amendments serves as an object lesson for all committee members who think that it is fairly simple to lodge an amendment that will achieve a desired effect.
Amendments 55 and 64 remove provisions regarding financial interest disqualification and removal of members. On a technical point, I would like to check that it is the intention that those matters will be catered for by orders under the proposed new paragraph under schedule 1.
Although we all subscribe to democracy and the introduction of a democratic element, we have to accept, if we are honest, that the proposed arrangement is not guaranteed success. I was concerned when the minister compared the elections with the elections to school boards and community councils, which are not uniformly successful in Scotland. We have to do a lot to ensure that the electors in national park areas participate in the elections and that there is adequate publicity to encourage their participation in decision making.
There will be practical difficulties in some of the suggested national park areas because of geography, particularly in the Cairngorm area, where there are many districts on the periphery that have no commonality with each other apart from the fact that they have the mass of the Cairngorms between them. Interesting conundrums will arise for the electoral register. I can imagine the electoral register of a polling district being broken down into two parts, depending on which bits of the district are in the national park area and which are not. However, we wish this provision well and we will all help to make it work in practice.
I wish to pick up a few points. First, I am not clear how the elections can be depoliticised, a point that Mike Rumbles raised. I do not see how there can be a process of election that does not have a political dimension. That may not be a party political dimension, but it could be. Once an electoral process is created, that possibility exists.
A second important issue, which I raised at stage 2, is boundaries. In the context of Loch Lomond, it is easy to see that the elections will be significantly influenced if Balloch is included in the boundaries of the national park. If it is included, it will skew the electoral structure. I would like Mike Rumbles to address how that issue might be handled.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am going to make four points and I would like Mike Rumbles to respond to them.
Ben Wallace's amendment raises a third important issue—the position of community councils. Mike Rumbles raised that matter at the Rural Affairs Committee when he lodged amendments on the 20 per cent representation of community councils on national park authorities. My reading of his current proposals is that they actually make it more difficult for community councils to be represented on those authorities. Given that Mike was facing in both directions, I am interested to know the basis on which he is settling down.
I appreciate that Des McNulty has some questions on local representation, but he lodged amendments of his own, which he withdrew in time for today's debate, just as he did at the Rural Affairs Committee. Why did he withdraw his own amendments?
I am asking questions about community councils. I am glad that Richard Lochhead did not contribute to that.
I have a final important issue to raise, which concerns quangos. There is a principle of local democratic accountability in local government that cuts across the UK, and it is important that we sustain it. Quangos can be rendered accountable in all kinds of ways—through local government, through this Parliament and through a process of direct election. One form of democratic accountability is not intrinsically superior to another. There is a debate to be had on the most appropriate form of democratic accountability and how it will work. That is particularly important in relation to the way in which planning powers will be exercised and the effectiveness of that. I am posing those issues as questions and I am genuinely interested in how Mike Rumbles will respond.
In the most recent debate—
Order. There is too much conversation going on on my right.
In the previous debate, Nicol Stephen said that national park proposals had been extensively debated, that many members had shared in the discussion and that it was wrong to suggest that any element of the proposals was narrowly based. In fact, the proposals that we have been given through the agency of Mike Rumbles were debated initially by 10 members of the Rural Affairs Committee, two ministers and two other MSPs—it may have been three—who happened to be at the committee at the time. It is a pity that we have not had the opportunity to debate the substantive issue in the Parliament—indeed, that is at the heart of some of the barracking from the Scottish National Party about the disappearance of certain amendments this week.
There is a lot to be said for and against the principle of direct elections. Many of the practicalities that arise from that discussion could usefully have occupied some parliamentary time this afternoon. As things stand, the committee agreed to Mr Rumbles's amendments. He has quite brilliantly gone through the bill in great detail and come up with scrupulous, detailed and refined consequential amendments—I am sure that he had no assistance in doing that. [Laughter.]
All the amendments have to be accepted, because they represent how the process—as defined at the committee—can be refined in practice. On the minister's comments about Ben Wallace's amendment, it would have been equally possible, had ministers been prepared to guarantee community council representation, to lay down guidance on how representative the selection of the two representatives might have been.
That process could have applied if ministers had had a will to promote community council representation as opposed to direct community representation. Let us face it—in some places, the people who are elected to the boards might be more high profile than some community councillors. Will we find that councillors are eligible to be elected to the national park authorities? Will MSPs and MPs be eligible? Presumably, that will be defined when the guidance comes out, but those are important questions, which we could usefully have discussed today. I would like to think that somewhere down the line there will be a mechanism to ensure that the people who are elected are not high-profile political people. Des McNulty is right—we will not get the politicians out of this; one way or another, they will be there. I would like to think that high-profile political people will not be elected. We want genuine community representatives. One way of achieving that is to ensure community council representation.
I accept the wisdom of Solomon in the increase in the nominated members from 19 to 20, to avoid the difficulty of dividing 19 by two—that seems reasonably sensible. Mr Morgan, I think, raised a point—I raised the same point with the minister this morning—relating to amendment 64 and precisely how the disqualification procedures might be framed. It is important for us to know that—the minister should be able to clarify it in summing up. With those comments, I should add that the Conservatives find the amendments in their entirety acceptable.
I am not a member of the Rural Affairs Committee, but I felt that I needed to speak today because my area, Stirling, will be one of the largest parts of the first national park, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. The national park authority and the representation on it is therefore a critical issue to me.
During the bill's passage, I have been contacted by a number of constituents, including councillors, members of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs interim committee, community councillors and others. Most of the concerns that have been expressed latterly arise from what happened at stage 2 in the Rural Affairs Committee.
My first point relates to the changes that were made to schedule 1 at stage 2. It is about Mike Rumbles's proposals, which form the subject of most of this debate, on the election of 20 per cent of the members to the national park authority. It was agreed that, in addition to that election, a fifth of the remaining 80 per cent appointed by the minister would also be local members. My understanding, and, I think, that of other members who were at that committee meeting, was that the two aspects of local representation—20 per cent by election and a further fifth of the 80 per cent—were seen not as existing together but as alternatives. However, they have come through together in the bill as amended at stage 2. I would like to hear Mike Rumbles's ideas on that.
The result of that coming together has been that councils, especially Stirling Council, if I may speak on its behalf, perceive their role as having diminished from what was the position before the stage 2 debates in the Rural Affairs Committee.
Much must be done to retrieve the situation so that councils can feel that they are moving forward in partnership with other groups. I hope that it will be possible to do that in the discussions that Nicol Stephen mentioned—on, for example, how the elections will be conducted. Unless we do that and take on board the concerns of councils in the park areas about services and community planning, the national parks will not exist as we planned for them to exist.
My other reservation concerns how the elections will take place, about which Des McNulty made some good comments. I was pleased to hear from Nicol Stephen that considerable debate will take place on that issue. I agreed with much of what Murray Tosh said about how we would have liked much more of the debate on this important matter to have taken place in the chamber. Could the minister, when he sums up, at least say that he will consider this important aspect? How do we get representation from different parts or areas within a national park authority? I worry that we might get over-representation from some parts rather than an even distribution.
I want to speak to amendment 27 and to point out that, in effect, this will be our last opportunity to recognise the role of community councils in the national parks.
We need to consider the context of my amendment. The future is local government reform. We may see changes to the electoral system—for example, through proportional representation—that mean that the local link between an area and its councillor will be lost. We may also see cabinet-style local authorities. There is nothing in the bill to prevent local authorities from placing on the national park authorities their own members, or members of the local authority governing party. That brings in Des McNulty's point about politicising. We cannot escape that, so it is appropriate that we maintain, for the future, the link between community councils and the park authorities.
The bill implies that direct elections may lead to community council members being represented on the national park authority, but there is nothing to guarantee that. I am trying merely to ensure that there are guarantees that members of community councils will be on the national park authorities.
If the Executive had had the will to ensure that community councils were represented on the national park authorities, it could, undoubtedly, have given me some of the help that it gave to another member with his amendments on a previous occasion.
Does the member accept that his amendments were not carried by the Rural Affairs Committee at stage 2?
My amendments or Mike Rumbles's?
Yours.
I believe that, at stage 2, the minister gave a number of assurances that the questions raised by my amendments would be reflected in the bill. As that did not happen, I thought it appropriate to lodge further amendments; obviously, the Presiding Officer agreed with me in his selection of amendments for stage 3.
This is our last opportunity to debate how we treat community councils and their position in local government. For example, in Braemar where I lived last year, and in Donside where I live now—both of which will be included in the Cairngorms national park—this issue is very important. The community council is everything to such places; it is their tourist board and it is from the community council that people run the village. To neglect that necessary tie between community councils and the national park authority will do such places a disservice. I hope that members will back my amendment.
I am used to members complaining when I do not select amendments, but I would be grateful if members did not pray me in aid when I do.
All members would agree that they do not wish the park authority to become politicised, although I suspect that that wish may be difficult to fulfil. I support amendment 45, which is Mike Rumbles's principal amendment, although it seems to me to be rather arbitrary to elect only 20 per cent of an authority. Be that as it may, amendment 45 should be supported.
I wish to raise some points that have been raised outside the chamber. I hope that the minister will be able to provide an assurance that the ministerial appointments to the authority will include a number of distinguished community councillors who have shown an interest and who have developed experience and expertise in the issues that are germane to the successful operation of national parks. Similarly, I hope that ministerial appointments will not be restricted to those who live outwith the area and who have no local connection. The minister indicated at stage 2 that such considerations were in her mind and that community councillors might be appointed by ministers rather than by local authorities. I suspect that local authorities will wish to select their own members to serve on the park authority.
On the other ministerial appointments, there is particular concern that some bodies in Scotland seem to think that they have a natural right to serve on every board that considers the environment. People in my constituency are concerned that the authority may become dominated by some of those voluntary organisations. All parties expressed concerns on that point at stage 2.
I say both to the minister and to the chamber that the royal society for the protection of people does not exist; if it did, it would be this Parliament. I hope that those members who represent urban constituencies appreciate and understand the fears that have been expressed by members such as Rhoda Grant, John Farquhar Munro and me. People have serious fears that decisions will be taken by powerful, well-funded groups that are not willing to compromise and, ultimately, that take their disputes to the jaws of the Court of Session, where they are usually thoroughly thrashed. I see one or two members on the Labour benches smiling in recognition of past battles, which the Government won.
No one wants a repeat of those battles. The way in which to avoid them is for the minister to give an assurance that she will not appoint to the authority voluntary organisations that profess to be the conservationists in Scotland. I submit that the true conservationists in Scotland are the farmers and crofters who live on the land, as have their fathers and their fathers' fathers before them—generation unto generation. I hope that the minister will look to them when making ministerial appointments.
I want to respond to some of the fears that have been raised in the chamber this afternoon. We will be going through a complex process, but the electoral order that will accompany the establishment of our national parks gives us the opportunity to debate in more depth and with more time some of the issues that members have raised. For example, I am happy to give Alasdair Morgan and Murray Tosh an assurance that we intend to address directly the issue of disqualification, which they raised, through the electoral order. The process will be challenging because we will be doing something different with the decision that, given the support of the chamber, we will take this afternoon.
The details will be challenging. We will ensure that we have widespread discussion. The affirmative electoral order will be voted on by Parliament, so all members will have the opportunity to be involved in the process. Murray Tosh's point about local representation and Sylvia Jackson's point about involving people from across the national park areas are fundamentally important. We will need to have a debate to decide how best the elections will be conducted.
I want to address the points that Murray Tosh and Sylvia Jackson raised. It is clear that the principle of involving local people and representatives of local interests will be retained in the nominations by local authorities and the Scottish ministers. Specifically, before the Scottish ministers consider appointing any member, they must consult every local authority and community council in the national park area. There is therefore an explicit commitment that the Scottish ministers will consult community councils on nominations, which is important.
I remind members who have followed the bill from day one that it contains a provision that we will consult people who appear to be representative of the interests of those who live, work or carry out business in the national park. Consultation and the invitation to people to nominate themselves or others who they think would be strong and helpful members of the national park authority are part of the bill. It is important to put that on record. Community councils will, therefore, be part of the process of nominating people with expertise and interests that could help the national park authority.
Des McNulty's point about representation from throughout the park area is critical. We will have to ensure that we get the form that the election process takes—the type of ballot, whether postal or other, and the amount of publicity that is circulated throughout the park area—right in the electoral order. It will be important to consult on that so that people feel that they are part of the process.
I want to make a couple of points about issues that Fergus Ewing raised. There will not be room for everyone on the national park authority. We will set a limit of 25 people, and they will need to be people with vision and broad experience who are tapped into a range of issues. The national parks will be challenging bodies to be part of, as they are being set up from first principles, but I do not subscribe to the negative comments made by Fergus Ewing. It is important that there is an appropriate place for people who can add weight and expertise to the national park authorities.
I do not pretend that every debate in the Cairngorms has gone without difficulty or that every issue that has been resolved has been resolved with everybody's absolute agreement, but the point of national parks is to resolve difficult issues through consensus, where possible, in line with the aims of national parks as set out in the bill. The process must be inclusive.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you. I am winding up.
I remind people that the national park advisory bodies will provide another way in which to involve people who represent special interest groups or local interests and for whom there is no room on the national park board. That is important. There are many ways in which a range of people will be involved. We must involve them as far as possible in a consensual way. We must do things differently and meet the aims to which we have all signed up, which kicked off the bill.
When I suggest to members that they should support all the amendments, it is because I want to get the process right. The process is complex. We have taken on board the arguments that were raised at stage 2. We must get it right in practice. This is not the end of the game. There will be further discussion.
I hope that that reassurance will encourage members to vote for the raft of amendments lodged by Mike Rumbles. All of them are integral—we need all of them to make the complex process work properly.
I am glad that Nicol Stephen addressed the depoliticisation of elections to the park authority. Des McNulty raised a few points that I want to address directly. Examples of depoliticised elections have been mentioned. We have talked about community councils and school boards as depoliticised. The elections we are considering would come into that category. I do not believe anyone here would want them to be politicised.
In this group of amendments, we are proposing to give ministers the leeway to sort out the practicalities of such issues as boundaries. Community councils—crikey. Local democratic accountability is the key to my amendments. They are all about ensuring that we get local people securely involved in our national parks so that the parks will work. It is a move away from quango culture.
Sylvia Jackson spoke about councils having a diminishing role. Let me reassure her and our local authorities that that is not intended. The original proposal was for a maximum of 10 representatives appointed by the minister and 10 appointed by local authorities. The intention is to add five local members. We are not taking representation away, but adding to it. Local authorities have nothing to fear; we are not talking of removing any of their input into local parks.
I am afraid that Ben Wallace did not seem to know that his amendments were not successful at stage 2. Is that because he was not there? Fergus Ewing, Sylvia Jackson, Murray Tosh and others were able to attend.
That is unfair. I explained this morning that Mr Wallace was at another committee at that time. I moved his amendments and after the minister's guarantees I withdrew them. That is a perfectly fair way for members to act.
The point is, Murray, that he did not know. The other point is about prioritisation—if he really thought that the issue was important. There have been complaints about members not being able to be involved. Let us get our priorities right—if a member is lodging amendments, that member should be there to move them.
Sarah Boyack used the word—
Did Mr Rumbles not move Tavish Scott's amendments when he was absent from the Rural Affairs Committee?
Sarah Boyack used the word—[Members: "Answer the question."] The point I was trying to make—
It is obvious that Mr Rumbles is not going to apologise. The people in Braemar will probably understand about the community council. The idea of Mr Rumbles's direct election is to create that directly elected link on the park authority. That link exists—it is called the community council. They are already elected. He wants new elections and a new layer when there are community councils in position and ready to be involved.
Murray Tosh, Ben Wallace's colleague who is sitting in front of him, has accepted all of these amendments. I believe Ben is voting for them. Let me get back to my speech. Sarah Boyack used the word "vision". I said earlier that our new Parliament is radical and innovative and that these proposals for the membership of the national park boards are exactly that. Let us have the vision to do something different. I hope that we will agree to the amendments.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Amendment 25 not moved.
Section 8—General purpose and functions
We now move to amendment 31, which is grouped with amendments 18 and 32.
Amendment 31 relates to section 8(1), which provides:
"The general purpose of a National Park authority is to ensure that the National Park aims are collectively achieved in relation to the National Park in a co-ordinated way."
The amendment would add:
"and to high standards of design and environmental stewardship."
I lodged amendment 31 because our national parks will include some of the finest landscapes in Scotland. It is clear that in managing national parks, a balance should be struck between local needs and the protection of great national assets. We should think about all aspects—social, economic and environmental—of sustainable development.
The ability to maintain our finest national landscapes and resources is of the utmost importance. Therefore it is imperative that a general purpose of a national park authority should be to ensure that the national park's aims are achieved with
"high standards of design and environmental stewardship."
That imperative applies to the four aims that are set out in the bill.
It is not intended that the promotion of
"high standards of design and environmental stewardship"
should be detrimental and restrictive—quite the opposite. Managing national parks in that way should enhance the parks' roles in every way, especially for those who live in the park areas.
Perhaps I have missed something. What does Dr Jackson refer to the design of?
I refer to the design of any aspect of national parks, for example building, planning and more general matters.
I point members to the policy memorandum for the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. Paragraph 6 outlines the advice to Government from its statutory advisers—Scottish Natural Heritage—which said:
"National Parks should secure high standards of environmental stewardship."
Another paragraph refers to the fact that, in relation to planning issues and so on, there will need to be
"enhanced design standards which may need to be adopted by the planning authority within the National Park area."
I suggest that
"high standards of design and environmental stewardship"
are vital components in maintaining and enhancing the special qualities of national parks via the aims of the parks. I recommend that members agree to amendment 31, which originated from the Scottish Council for National Parks.
I move amendment 31.
Amendment 18 seeks to provide balance and to make national parks work. The aims of the national parks are set out in section A1. It is important to begin by reflecting on the fact that there has been added to that section a word that completely alters the sense of what was in the original bill, which said that the first purpose of a national park would be
"to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area."
The original drafting also said that the fourth purpose of a park would be
"to promote economic and social development of the area's communities."
The significant word that has been added is "sustainable". The fourth purpose of the park as set out in the bill now reads:
"to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities."
That word alters completely the sense of the original bill because any development that is pursued as an aim of the park must now be sustainable. I contend that the phrase "sustainable development" means development that does not harm the environment.
If I am correct, it follows logically from the only ordinary interpretation of the words that there cannot be conflict between the aims in section A1(a) and section A1(d). The first says that we want to conserve the environment—everybody wants that. The second says that, none the less, we will pursue the aim of sustainable development. Sustainable development is development that does not detract from, harm or hamper conservation. That point was not made during stage 2. I want to emphasise it today, in the hope that members of all parties will find it possible to support my amendment, which is not being pursued in a party political way.
I have three further arguments that I will put briefly. First, what sort of message does it send if we fetter the decision-making power of the authority so that, if it appears that conflict exists, it must give greater weight to conservation considerations, even if the conflict is with sustainable development? As I say, I do not believe that, by definition, such conflict can possibly occur. Having appointed members of a park authority, we should surely trust them. We should trust the local people and the members who are on the authority to do the job and to take each decision on its merits. That is surely what sensible, intelligent people—people with vision, as the minister said—should do, will do, and will always seek to do. Devolution should not end in Edinburgh. Unless we accept this amendment, we are constraining the decision-making powers by the application of the Sandford principle, which I believe to be unnecessary.
Secondly, there is no definition of what conflict means. The Sandford principle must be applied where it appears to the park authority that there is conflict. But what constitutes conflict? If two voluntary organisations object to a proposal, I submit that that could well be construed as conflict. If the park authority says that it is not conflict, will voluntary organisations seek a judicial review and go to the Court of Session? A similar thing has happened, in one instance, three times in three or four years. Will they then try to block the park authority, saying that it has exercised its discretion inappropriately by refusing to hold that there is conflict? I have raised at stage 1 and stage 2 the point that there is no definition of conflict; there has been no attempt to amend the bill to indicate what that word means. Without a definition of that word, I believe that we are in serious difficulty.
Thirdly, there are existing designations of land—national scenic areas, of which there are more than 40 in Scotland; sites of special scientific interest; Ramsar sites; and sites designated under the habitat directive. All of those designations are in effect now; all of them will continue to be in effect the day after the national park is created. The purpose of the designation of a national park is not to confer further protection on land; it is to enable the management of areas of special importance from the point of view of conservation.
In my constituency, there is growing concern about some aspects of the bill and especially about what will happen if the Sandford principle is to be applied in the way that is described. My constituents have seen many battles in the past between the people and powerful voluntary organisations; no one wants to see them again. It seems to me that those battles are as though between David and Goliath. If we reject this amendment, we are taking the sling from David and handing it to Goliath.
Mr Harper, are you aware that your amendment—amendment 32—is being debated with this group?
Yes.
Then it would be helpful if you pressed your to request-to-speak button.
I am sorry.
Beware the Wolf of Badenoch—even though he comes before us in sheep's clothing. He tells us not to worry, saying that it will not make any difference if one little phrase is removed from the bill by means of his amendment. I put it to members that removing it would eviscerate the bill. I would contend that, if anything, the bill should be strengthened.
The Executive is to be congratulated on bringing this bill to Parliament, not just 50 years after similar legislation came into force in England, but nearly 100 years after the great John Muir started his campaign for national parks in the United States.
A senior Labour Western Isles councillor said of the American national parks that the first action was to get rid of all the Indians.
I shall rise to Dr Ewing's challenge. That was part of a persistent policy of the United States Government to get rid of the Indians from just about everywhere in the United States, not just the parks—and it was certainly not a policy of John Muir's.
He allowed it.
John Muir did not allow it to happen; the United States Government pursued that policy.
I have a feeling that there are still some members who do not understand the international significance of national park designation. It is internationally accepted that parks can be graded from 1 to 6. It is my fear that, even with the bill as it stands, our national parks may be graded only at 5 or 6. It remains to be seen whether, once they are set up, they will achieve higher status. The idea behind the Sandford principle is not a complete ban on activity; it is simply that all developments in a park, whatever they are, should be consistent with the conservation of the natural aspects and human geography of the park.
The Transport and the Environment Committee, which has hardly been mentioned so far today, also considered the bill in detail and agreed that the socio-economic aims of the national park should always be met in accordance with the aim of conservation. I lodged a previous amendment in an attempt to give effect to that opinion by placing all other aims on an equal footing with the conservation aim, but it was not accepted by the Rural Affairs Committee at stage 2.
My new amendment introduces the original recommendation of the Sandford report and would provide a safety net whereby if the park authority perceived a conflict, the conservation aim would prevail rather than just be given greater weight. I have lodged amendment 32 to give the minister an opportunity to assure us that the Executive wording that my amendment is intended to replace is sufficiently robust to ensure that the Sandford principle will be effectively introduced by the bill and adhered to when the parks are set up. I still fear that the bill is not sufficiently robust but, if the minister can assure me that the present wording of the bill incorporates the Sandford principle, I may decide not to move my amendment.
Would you like to respond now, minister, or would you prefer to wait until the end of the debate?
I am happy to let the debate continue.
In that case, I call Dr Elaine Murray.
I must take issue with Fergus Ewing's definition of "sustainable". I question whether his definition has any legal force. It could be argued that something is sustainable if it can be sustained in the longer term.
Does Elaine Murray accept that if "sustainable" is in the bill—nobody is suggesting that we delete it—it will have legal force once the bill is passed and must therefore have legal meaning?
I am saying that the legal meaning of "sustainable" is not necessarily what Fergus Ewing wants it to be when he argues for the Sandford principle to be removed from the bill.
We are discussing what happens when the national park authority exercises its functions; what happens when two voluntary sector organisations fall out is not relevant. If there is a conflict between the various aims of the national park, the national park authority is to give greater weight in the exercise of its functions to environmental considerations.
We are seeking to strike an appropriate balance between conservation and development. Sylvia Jackson spoke about some of the concerns in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area, which to me—as an outsider—appear to centre on possible misuse of the environment. People feel that the institution of a national park might damage the environmental heritage that they want to sustain. Equally, it is quite clear to me from talking to people from the Cairngorms area that their main concerns relate to the communities that live and work in the area. They are worried that their interests will be subordinated to those of the conservation minded and of environmentalists.
When drafting enabling legislation, the Executive needs to strike the right balance. I believe that in this bill the Executive has done that. It is saying that if there is a conflict between the aims of a national park, the national park authority must in the exercise of its functions give greater weight to environmental considerations. I know that Robin Harper feels that that phrasing does not have quite the strength of "prevail", but I believe that it has the same intention. The intention is quite clear—that if there is a problem in the functioning of the park, environmental considerations must take precedence over everything else. That is probably the right approach, given that we are talking about national parks. Robin Harper was quite right to make that point. In our discussions of direct representation, we have concentrated on the local perspective, but our intention is to establish national parks with a national and international reputation. We must not lose sight of the importance of that.
Fergus Ewing made a number of significant points that go to the heart of the discussion that took place in the Conservative group when we considered the correct approach to take to section 8. Throughout this process, we have seen it as important that, when framing the objectives of this bill, the Executive should recognise that development of local communities is vital and must not be prevented. All along we have been concerned by the possibility that national park areas might be set in aspic and that we might not be able to move forward in those areas to meet the requirements of the communities that live there.
We feel that the line that the Executive has come to as the bill has evolved is balanced. The difficulty that I have with some of the points that Fergus Ewing made is that there is not yet sufficient clarification in the bill of how ministers will regulate this matter. At stage 2, I moved an amendment that would have put on the face of the bill the concept of zoning. The subject was discussed extensively in committee. It is clear that what is sustainable in one zone may be unsustainable in another. I assume that if someone wanted to develop an hotel in Aviemore on an existing commercial site, that would be regarded as sustainable development, whereas if they tried to build it in Glen Derry, that would not be considered sustainable or acceptable. The principle of zoning is central.
At stage 2, the minister would not accept that zoning should be included in the bill, so I withdrew my amendment. I hope that she will make it as clear in the debate on these amendments as she did in the earlier discussion on electoral arrangements that when we reach the stage of considering zoning in practice—when we have the necessary subordinate legislation and regulations—there will be full consultation on what that involves. We need to know how zones will be determined and how precise they will be. Will they be very broad band, or will they be like local plan zones, where tightly defined policies are laid down to guide development in communities?
The committees did not really examine those issues; we all fell foul of the timetable at various points in this process. It would be interesting to hear what Sarah Boyack's intentions are when it comes to putting flesh on the skeleton concept of zoning in the national park areas. If she is able to give reassurance on that, I think that there is no requirement for Fergus Ewing's amendment.
Fergus Ewing also addressed conflict. As I read the bill, it is for the national park authority to decide whether proposed actions are in conflict with its aims. In that respect, it is no different from what planning authorities all over the country do when they review development proposals. They consider whether development proposals accord with or conflict with the approved development plans. If local authorities consider that they conflict, there will generally be a presumption against approval and there may, in certain circumstances, be referral on to ministers. Conflict should not give us particular cause for concern.
Does Murray Tosh accept that the National Parks (Scotland) Bill is designed to be a robust method of solving conflict, which will inevitably arise?
I cannot speak for the minister, but I understood that the bill tries to give the national park authority the lead role in resolving conflict—it is to be vested within the community, its representatives and the various people on the national park boards. I think that what is in the bill to resolve conflict is perfectly adequate.
The problem with Fergus Ewing trying to found entirely on sustainability is, as I said earlier, that sustainability has a different precise meaning in different locations. There may be a meaning of sustainability, but I am not sure that it is possible to found on the meaning of the word. I would rather leave it to local people, the local plan authorities—the people on the ground, as it were—to resolve this for themselves through the interpretation of where there is conflict and where and when they should apply what we know as the Sandford principle, although that is not in the bill and is not legal either.
I am sure that Fergus Ewing does not intend to do this but, in effect, his amendment seems to strike out the central concept of the national park. What is the point of having the national park if we are not prepared to give primacy to conservation where that is the prime consideration? In other zones of the park area, where there is building and economic development, it is appropriate to put that first so long as we are happy that it accords with the overall principles.
Robin Harper's amendment goes too far the other way. They are perhaps the mirror image of each other—equally extreme in different directions—Mr Nasty and Mr Nice in their approaches. I suspect that Robin Harper's amendment is not really necessary either. I have no specific view on Sylvia Jackson's amendment. I am not sure that it adds anything to the bill. Ministers and the Rural Affairs Committee have evolved this to the stage where it is about as right as we can get it.
I suggest that we should not accept any of the amendments in this group.
During the debates in the Rural Affairs Committee there was felt to be—as has been alluded to—tension between conservation and development, which are two of the four aims. Those tensions are illustrated by amendments 18 and 32.
Some of the arguments on both sides are somewhat exaggerated. It strikes me that we cannot necessarily give any proposal that comes forward either a tick or a cross against not just the two aims, but the four aims that are laid down in section A1 of the bill. Those are conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage; promoting sustainable use of the natural resources; promoting—before it was amended—recreation in and understanding and enjoyment of the area; and promoting sustainable economic and social development.
It is oversimplifying life too greatly to say that a proposal does not meet one criterion but does meet another. I thought that the balance in the bill was about right at stage 2, but I confess—I am speaking personally—that I am somewhat persuaded by Fergus Ewing's argument. Some of the responses that I have heard today have persuaded me even more to agree with Fergus's argument. I do not think that Murray Tosh's argument that sustainability means different things in different parts of a park area necessarily goes against Fergus's argument, as we could say exactly the same of the other aims that are laid down in section A1: in different parts of the park, the interpretation of the other aims will also vary.
It concerns me that we are still arguing about what sustainable economic and social development means. Given that that is one of the main aims of a national park, as stated in section A1 of the bill, we are in a sorry state if we do not yet know what it is. I look forward to the minister explaining to us the official line on the definition of sustainable development in different areas of the park. I take on board what Fergus Ewing said and would be inclined to support his amendment 18.
I am not convinced that amendment 31 is needed. If it is needed, I am not convinced that it is in the correct place. It is not obvious what "design" means and I think that the amendment might be withdrawn.
We have had as thorough a debate today as we had at stage 2. At that point, I said that the success of the national parks would depend on getting the balance right. I agree with Elaine Murray on that point.
Murray Tosh said that he thought that we have got the bill about as right as we can get it. I would like to keep that comment for posterity. Alasdair Morgan said that it was important that we do not exaggerate fears. I would like to hang on to that sentiment, as I believe that amendments 32 and 18 typify the polar opposites of the debate and are not representative of the balance that we are trying to achieve. Amendment 32, in the name of Robin Harper, reflects a fear that the principle in section 8(6) is not strong enough and will not prevent unfettered development. The fear behind amendment 18, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is that the principle will always be invoked and will stifle all forms of development to the detriment of local people. Both fears were debated at stage 2, when the committee's opinion was that we had the balance right. I feel that we have.
Robin Harper asked whether our national parks would be national parks as defined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. If we manage to maintain the balance that we have in the bill, the answer would be yes. However, if we tinker with the bill and attempt to remove the Sandford principle, the answer might be no.
The key objective is to deliver a national park authority that is required to act to achieve all four of its aims: conservation of the natural and cultural heritage; the sustainable use of natural resources; enjoyment and recreation; and the sustainable economic and social development of communities. At stage 2 we added not only the word "sustainable", but the word "communities". It is important that we remember that we are talking about the economic and social development of communities.
Following consultation on the draft bill, we added the provision that those four aims are to be pursued collectively and in a co-ordinated way. That is important. The national park authority must not pursue one of those aims to the exclusion of the others. We have made it clear all along that we must have an integrated approach, not the old-style approach that automatically sees development as being contrary to conservation interests. The bill has been drafted to ensure that the national park authority looks for an integrated approach, tries to avoid conflict and reconciles competing interests. Only after failing to resolve a conflict would it be required to give greater weight to conservation. The Sandford principle is not the first port of call; it is what guides the park authority once it has exhausted the other avenues. Every opportunity must be taken for negotiation and mediation before the principle set out in section 8(6) is invoked. That is what will be new about the national park areas. In answer to Murray Tosh, I will say that I am prepared to use the statutory guidance to the national park authorities to make it clear that we expect the number of instances when the principle bites to be kept to a minimum and that they should try to reconcile different viewpoints.
Zoning will help us to do that. It will ensure that, if appropriate, different approaches will be taken in different parts of the park area. The construction of the national park plan will be subject to wide consultation which will bring the community into the discussion. People will be able to air their views about where zoning should occur and what the nature of the zones should be. Careful planning and positive management, as provided in the national park plan, will be vital to the balance that we must deliver.
Despite all the care, there will be times when conflicts are difficult to resolve. In such cases, it is right that the conservation of a park's special qualities should be given greater weight. The wording is significant: it is not "take precedence", as the matter concerns the judgment of the national park authority in dealing with difficult issues. I do not agree with amendments 18 and 32. The bill strikes the right balance at the moment.
Amendment 31 is similar to an amendment that Sylvia Jackson lodged at stage 2. I gave a commitment then to think carefully about the points that she made. I support the aspirations behind the amendment. Of course we want good design in buildings and good stewardship. However, this is not the right place in the bill to address that, or the right way in which to achieve those aspirations.
The amendment refers to two specific issues: the design of buildings and environmental stewardship or land management issues. Section 8 is more concerned with the collective and co-ordinated pursuit of the bill's aims, and the question of sustainability is already encapsulated in those aims, both in terms of natural resources and in the promotion of sustainable economic and social development. There are more appropriate vehicles for delivering what Sylvia Jackson's amendment seeks to ensure. Planning guidance, management schemes and guidance for national park authorities will allow us to achieve the appropriate balance and set the appropriate agenda for those issues. Good design is sought in all buildings, and is an aspiration that all members would share. However, that should be encouraged through planning and the associated guidance; it should not be in statute.
The bill as drafted strikes the right balance; nevertheless, this has been a useful debate, as it has illustrated the difficulties and challenges that the national park authority will face. Statutory guidance will help the authority in that respect. I hope that the commitments that I have given will encourage Sylvia Jackson not to press her amendment when we come to vote on it.
Given those reassurances, I withdraw amendment 31.
Amendment 31, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 18 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Abstentions
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 17, Against 90, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
I call Robin Harper to move amendment 32.
In view of the minister's cast-iron and copper-bottomed assurance that the Sandford principle is embedded in the legislation, I will not move amendment 32.
Amendment 32 not moved.
Section 11—National park plans: procedure
Amendment 19 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 11A—National park plans: review
We now move to amendment 33, which is grouped with amendment 34.
Members of the Transport and the Environment Committee will be pleased to see amendment 33, because it arises from the deliberations of that committee. It was the committee's view that there should be a regular review process for national park plans. We suggested that reviews should take place every five years, and the amendment says that a review should take place not more than five years after the adoption of the plan or after a previous review.
The objective of the amendment is simply good governance. We need a structure for the process of consultation. A regular process of review is sensible. Essentially, the amendment is a technical measure to provide for reviews.
I move amendment 33.
Amendment 34 arises from debate in the Rural Affairs Committee at stage 2. It is about the importance of audits in the review procedure. Des McNulty said that on-going reviews are important for good governance. Amendment 34 goes alongside his amendment.
Amendment 34 relates to the importance of audits in ascertaining whether the aims have been achieved and the programmes of work carried out to the requisite standards. Audits should be part of an on-going process of monitoring and review, which is essential for development.
The funding arrangements for a national park authority are equivalent to those of a Government agency. All Government agencies are from time to time subject to audits of their performance by their supervising departments and by the National Audit Office. The amendment provides the facility for an audit assessment of a national park authority. That is an important mechanism to ensure that a national park authority achieves its purposes and programmes of work to the standards that are set out in its national park plan.
I commend amendment 34, in the absence of an assurance that that aspect will be covered at a later stage of the process for setting up individual national parks.
I support Des McNulty's amendment 33. It is important, and ensures that a review will take place at least every five years. I believe that that is an improvement on the bill, which states:
"A National Park authority must from time to time review its National Park Plan".
The amendment is an absolutely first-class idea.
I am aware that amendment 33 was inspired by the stage 2 debate on national park plan reviews. Everybody accepted that it is important to review national park plans and that we must get the balance right between a review period that is too long and one that is too short. I appreciate Des McNulty's concern, which he expressed at stage 2, that not to specify in the bill how often reviews should take place might leave some uncertainty. Amendment 33 takes forward the discussion that we had at stage 2 about whether guidance or directions would be appropriate. I believe that his amendment provides a suitable balance. The maximum period for which a plan can operate without being reviewed is now five years, but the amendment allows flexibility for directions to be given to review a plan more frequently, if that is considered necessary. Therefore, I support amendment 33.
I move on to Sylvia Jackson's amendment 34. As we discussed at stage 2, the auditing and monitoring of the activities of national parks is important. It is equally important that that information is publicly available. I assure Sylvia Jackson that her amendment is unnecessary because the bill already provides Scottish ministers with sufficient powers to require audits of various kinds. For example, section 20(1) states:
"The Scottish Ministers may make grants to a National Park authority for such purposes, of such amounts and on such terms as they think fit."
That empowers Scottish ministers to attach conditions to the national park authorities' grant-in-aid settlements. Almost certainly, those conditions will include audits and monitoring.
Section 24 ensures that national park authorities issue annual reports on their activities. I would expect those reports to include any audit findings and information about the monitoring of performance against targets. Those reports would have to be published and laid before Parliament. Furthermore, Scottish ministers can issue guidance or give directions to a national park authority under section 14.
There are many ways in which we can demonstrate that Scottish ministers can ensure that audit arrangements are in place and that they are followed. I hope that that reassures Sylvia Jackson that the bill provides amply for audit and monitoring arrangements and that her amendment is not required.
Amendment 33 agreed to.
Amendment 34 not moved.
Section 12—Duty to have regard to National Park Plans
We move to amendment 35, which is grouped with amendment 36, both in the name of John Farquhar Munro.
In simple terms, my amendments seek to ensure that we have complete regard for the national park plan.
Amendment 35 places a duty on all bodies that operate within the national park to notify the national park authority of any departure from the plan. That notification procedure ensures that although the plan will be followed generally by everyone within the boundaries of the national park, the Scottish Executive will retain the flexibility to override it if it considers that to do so is in the national interest or that there are special circumstances. The mechanism ensures that any decision to override the national park plan is taken at a national level, by those who are responsible for its approval and who are accountable to the national Parliament. It is a straightforward amendment, which would give complete control to the national park body and ultimately to the Scottish Executive.
I move amendment 35.
Having read the amendments, I cannot work out why such provision needs to be in the bill. I have not heard much to convince me that the amendments would greatly improve the bill. They seem to be an unnecessarily bureaucratic addition to the measures that it already contains.
I agree with Alasdair Morgan. If taken literally, the amendments seem to give huge powers to the Minister for Transport and the Environment to intervene in almost anything that happens in the national park area. Although we all have utter faith in the ability of the minister, we might have questions about her successors and about her ability to answer any letters or parliamentary questions ever again if she were burdened with such heavy duties. The amendments go too far.
I would like the minister to address the issue of notification, which came up extensively in committee debate. Will she assure us that there will be adequate notification procedures for planning applications to be referred to ministers when there appears to be conflict between the national park authorities and the local authorities? Surely any proposal for a national park area that is likely to cause severe concern will be identified in that.
The amendments are very similar to amendments lodged by John Munro at stage 2. They relate to the duty on public bodies to "have regard to" the national park plan—a matter on which we have had a great deal of discussion already.
Amendment 35 would place an obligation on local authorities and public bodies to notify the national park authorities of any proposed act that might be contrary to the national park plan. It also seeks to make it a requirement that the national park authority must publicise the proposals, as it sees fit, and refer them
"to the Scottish ministers for determination".
Amendment 36 would achieve a similar aim, but in a slightly different way, by requiring public bodies to seek the prior approval of ministers before doing anything contrary to the national park plan.
I will reiterate some of the comments made at stage 2, and some of the comments already made by Opposition members in this afternoon's discussions. John Farquhar Munro's two amendments would give the Scottish ministers very wide-ranging powers to intervene in a huge range of circumstances.
I wish to mention a burning problem in much of the Highlands—the provision of local housing. I put a case to the minister for him to consider: what if the local authority needed to provide housing, but the national park authority said no, on the ground that it was not sustainable development? In such cases, surely ministers would be well advised to have the power to agree to have that housing built. I give that as an example.
I think that the right reassurance for such cases was that which Murray Tosh was seeking: that there will be appropriate notification procedures, and there will be mechanisms for dealing with such issues.
Concentrating so much power—as could be the case were Mr Munro's amendments to be accepted—in the hands of ministers would not, in my view, be a good thing. That would be particularly inappropriate in relation to the planning issues that Dr Ewing highlighted.
The planning authority already has discretion to make decisions, and is required to pay special attention to the national park plan. Amendments 35 and 36, however, would require the planning authority to seek ministerial views every time it wanted to exercise that discretion in a particular way. They would also give ministers two planning roles: one at this stage, with regard to the national parks legislation, and another at the call-in stage, regarding the planning legislation.
Although I recognise the intention of amendments 35 and 36, to strengthen the role of the national park plan, their effect would be to put an enormous amount of power in the hands of the Scottish ministers, which I am sure that the Parliament would not wish—despite Murray Tosh's vote of confidence in our Minister for Transport and the Environment.
I wish to give a firm assurance to John Farquhar Munro: there are already effective safeguards in the bill for the integrity of national park plans, which we want to be effective. There will be adequate notification procedures and I hope that, on that basis, I have persuaded John Farquhar Munro that his two amendments are not necessary.
Having listened to the minister, I am persuaded that there is every good intent in the bill as currently worded, and I am prepared to withdraw amendment 35 and not to move amendment 36.
Amendment 35, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 36 not moved.
Section 28—Modification and revocation of designation orders
Amendment 37 was debated in the fifth group of amendments. Mr McNulty is not here. Would someone else care to move it?
I will move it.
I ought to move it.
Mike Rumbles has already indicated his support for amendment 37—which was a most moving experience. [Laughter.] Mr Stephen is moving it, and I will put the question.
Amendment 37 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 29—Application in relation to marine areas
Amendment 40, in the name of Tavish Scott, is grouped on its own.
I can assure Mike Rumbles that I am here. I am present. I also hope that, in future, the chamber will obey the Rumbles doctrine, "Thou shalt always be present to move thine amendments." I have therefore referred the British Airways service between Shetland and Edinburgh to the Standards Committee.
In moving amendment 40, I want to refer to the wider context of fishing interests and marine national parks. When the Transport and the Environment Committee took evidence on that particular proposal, it was clear particularly from Scottish Natural Heritage, as the Government's adviser on the matter, that marine national parks were somewhat of an afterthought. They were not proposed in the first stages of consultation and members were aware that it was felt that they should be added at a later stage. However, having read the stage 2 debate, I feel that there is still a need to tighten up the measure for fishing interests, which is what my amendment seeks to do.
As Murray Tosh has pointed out, there is concern about the scope of the bill's measures in the future. Although there might be considerable faith in the present ministers, no one knows who will follow. As a result, we must ensure that section 29 is appropriately tightened.
One of the organisations that have provided copious evidence in support of marine national parks has said that objectives for management of our best marine areas should include matters such as
"the use of zoning to deliver a different balance of objectives in different areas . . . promotion of economic development compatible with sustainable management of sensitive and valuable natural resources . . . the need for active management and proactive intervention to ensure habitat protection"
and
"the judicious use of controls and incentives to support duties placed upon managers and users".
Those four points illustrate the bill's need for full and adequate consultation with fishing interests if and when a marine national park is considered.
The amendment simply ensures that the consultation process must always include consultation with representatives of fishermen who could fish in a potential marine national park.
Having reread the Official Report of the evidence given by the minister at stage 2, I welcome his assurance
"to strengthen the consultation and make very sure that all the key fishing interests were appropriately involved before moving to a designation proposal".—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 19 June 2000; c 1008.]
In that light, it is important that, having discussed the issue with fishing representatives such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, we ensure adequate coverage in the bill and that the measure is enshrined in the legislation.
In that spirit, I move amendment 40.
I want to say a few words indicating the SNP's support of amendment 40, in the name of Tavish Scott. In the chamber—of all places—we should know that ignoring proper consultation with the fishing industry will always come back to haunt us, when it comes to legislation that might impinge on fishermen's livelihoods. There is a perception that marine national parks were bolted on to the bill and that not much thought was given to consequences or implications. Indeed, the minister and SNH admitted as much when they came before the Rural Affairs Committee.
However, the SNP recognises that there is a case for referring to marine national parks in the bill, and the fishing industry has worked with environmental interests to agree the wording of Tavish Scott's amendment. I am sure that all members will welcome such a development.
That said, the initial e-mail that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation sent to the Rural Affairs Committee stated:
"If measures were planned for the near shore, they should have been granted specific and separate time for discussion and legislation. It is conceivable that if that had been done, the bill before the parliament would have been significantly different and may have gone further in addressing the needs of Scotland's fragile coastal communities."
Those comments highlight fishing communities' concern about the bill.
However, things have moved on. We now have Tavish Scott's amendment, which is supported by both environmental and fisheries interests. It offers a degree of comfort and assurance to the fishing communities, and I urge Parliament to support it.
We propose to accept Tavish Scott's amendment. The issue was debated at stage 2 and we agreed to return to it at stage 3.
The amendment reflects the concern raised at stage 2 that the bill gives powers to the Scottish ministers under section 29 to modify the bill for the establishment of marine national parks, which might result in a reduction in the consultation process. I gave reassurances, which I am happy to reiterate, that that was never the intention. Indeed, because of the particular circumstances relating to marine national parks, we wish to have these powers so that we can extend the consultation to include fishing organisations.
I reassure the committee and Parliament that it has always been the intention that fishing organisations would be consulted on marine park proposals, but to underscore that point, and to make it clear in the bill, I am happy to accept the amendment. It should reassure fishing organisations and their members that they will be central to any consultations that are undertaken on marine national parks.
Finally, I congratulate Tavish Scott on his excellent drafting skills, and especially on the final words of his amendment, which are:
"in the part of the area consisting of the sea."
Is Tavish Scott happy?
Yes.
Amendment 40 agreed to.
Section 32—Orders
Amendments 41 and 42 moved—[Mr Rumbles]—and agreed to.
After section 33
We now come to amendment 26.
I wish to speak to and move amendment 26, in the name of Michael Russell. This amendment in support of Gaelic is part of a much wider approach to building and securing the language—a language that is spoken probably by fewer than 50,000 people in Scotland, but which is as much a part of our heritage and our future as any other aspect of Scottish culture. All new structures that are established in Scotland must recognise the linguistic diversity of the country.
A number of amendments were brought forward at stage 2 to introduce into the management, operation and interpretation of national parks the concept of the use of Gaelic. None of them was accepted. This amendment would show that national parks intend to be inclusive, and to bring Gaelic speakers into the main stream. Mainstreaming is vital, because Gaelic has to be part of our daily lives if all of us are to accept its claims and validity. In many countries, for example Ireland, all material is bilingual. Surely it is not too much to ask that there should be a commitment to Gaelic in national parks in Gaelic-speaking areas of Scotland.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the visible presence of the park is available, and is seen to be available, in Gaelic, so that the parks have a Gaelic dimension and a Gaelic benefit. It is a small step forward, at limited cost, but it is of great symbolic significance.
I move amendment 26.
The Conservative party is not convinced that the amendment is necessary. We are not sure that Gaelic is spoken in either of the national park areas that have been identified so far, but we would like a commitment from the minister that if, following scrutiny, that proves not to be the case in the Cairngorms national park area, or if it proves not to be the case—as clearly it will not—in any prospective national park in Wester Ross, Gaelic versions of all documentation will be produced where appropriate. However, it is not appropriate that all documentation should automatically be produced in Gaelic in every case.
The amendment would make it compulsory for documents to be published in Gaelic. While that might be good practice in Gaelic-speaking areas, I fail to see the necessity to publish documents in Gaelic if there was, for example, a proposal that the southern uplands should become a national park, or Orkney or even Shetland.
While the sentiment behind the amendment might be appropriate in Gaelic-speaking areas, I see no reason why it should be compulsory for parts of the country where Gaelic is not spoken.
If the Lib-Lab Government is at all serious about trying to nurture Gaelic, which we all know has been in grave danger for a long time, it must use every legislative opportunity to do so.
I have listened to the debate with great interest. Many people fail to understand the situation of Gaelic speakers and those who sympathise with them. I speak as a learner who has not found it easy to get to the stage I am at. Because I am a learner, when I go around places such as Strathspey I try to find people with whom to practise Gaelic. I find them with no difficulty—Gaelic speakers can be found at any shinty match in Strathspey.
However, it is not only Gaelic speakers who have the confidence to burst into Gaelic, but their relatives, friends and their sympathisers—a huge body of people. I was interested in the example of the southern uplands. We could make a national park out of Glasgow, which is where we would find the largest number of Gaelic speakers. That argument does not wash well. Gaelic has not gone from all parts of Argyll but I have not had much success finding it around the shores of Loch Lomond, although I am sure it must be there.
The principle is that the Lib-Lab Government should use legislative opportunities to show that it is serious. If it does not take those opportunities, it is only putting another nail in the coffin of this distinguished language.
Our linguistic heritage was debated in the Rural Affairs Committee and the Executive proposed an amendment to section 33 to include language in cultural heritage, which is mentioned in the first of the park aims.
I am sympathetic to the amendment, as it aims to promote Gaelic, but I feel that the Executive's amendment takes that into account. I prefer "language" to "Gaelic" because, historically, more than one language has been spoken in Scotland. During the committee stages of the debate, reference was made to Gaelic and Scots, but those are limiting. A national park could be set up in, say, Shetland, which might consider its linguistic heritage, Norse, rather than Gaelic or Scots.
While I would do everything I could to promote Gaelic, that does not mean that I demean other people's linguistic heritage. Although I support the sentiments behind the amendment, I do not support it.
As has been said, we went a considerable way at stage 2 to give assurances about Scotland's linguistic heritage. A key element of that is Gaelic. We did not want to be prescriptive on the face of the bill because, as Rhoda Grant said, other languages have been spoken in Scotland, which are part of Scotland's history. However, we wish to promote the live, vibrant and active Gaelic language.
Amendment 26 proposes to include in the bill a requirement that reports and statements, the national park plan, directions and guidance by the Scottish Executive to the national park board, annual reports and orders should all be published in English and Gaelic. Many of us would question whether the amendment is the best and most effective way in which to support Gaelic in Scotland.
Alasdair Morrison, the minister responsible for Gaelic, would use stronger words than me in rebutting the amendment and some of the remarks made by Winnie Ewing, for example, about the aim of the Parliament and the Executive to help to encourage Gaelic.
What we need is real, meaningful action. For example, we need interpretative material for school visits by Gaelic-medium education pupils and students. We see that as essential. We need signage of Gaelic names in national parks, where that is appropriate, but many of the names are Gaelic in the first place. We need acknowledgement of the linguistic heritage of national park areas, for example in parts of the Trossachs.
Those initiatives should, and will, come from the national park authority itself. It would be inappropriate to specify them in the sort of prescriptive detail that we have in the amendment. The real challenge is to ensure that we support Gaelic in a practical and effective way. That is why the Executive sets so much store on access to Gaelic through Gaelic-medium education.
Gaelic should have its rightful place and status acknowledged. That is why the amendment is misconceived and would be a costly diversion of funds from initiatives that really matter and that really can make the difference.
We recognise fully the importance of the Gaelic tradition and language in Scotland's cultural heritage. It is a vital part of our national inheritance. I hope, on that basis, that I have persuaded Mike Russell, or Irene McGugan in his place, that amendment 26 is not needed and I invite him not to press the issue to a vote.
l want to press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a two-minute division.
For
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Abstentions
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
The result of the division is: For 31, Against 80, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 26 disagreed to.
Schedule 1
Constitution etc of National Park authorities
Amendments 43 and 45 moved—[Mr Rumbles] and agreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Ben Wallace].
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 18, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27 disagreed to.
I now propose to put the question on the following amendments en bloc: 48, 53, 55, 59, 61, 62, 64 and 66 to 68.
Amendments 48, 53, 55, 59, 61, 62, 64 and 66 to 68 moved—[Mr Rumbles]—and agreed to.
Schedule 5
Modification of enactments
We now come to amendment 69, which is grouped with amendment 70. Members will be pleased to hear that this is the last group of amendments. I call Sarah Boyack. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon—I call Nicol Stephen.
That is an easy mistake to make, Presiding Officer.
Amendment 69 strengthens the proposed new section 264A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 proposed by paragraph 15 of schedule 5. The amendment sets out that in the exercise of any power under the planning acts with respect to any land in a national park, special attention shall be paid to
"the desirability of exercising the power consistently with"
the national park plan, as adopted. It strengthens the duty to have regard to the national park plan, under section 12 of the bill, to which planning authorities are already subject. It may also be of interest to John Farquhar Munro. It puts beyond question the fact that planning authorities must, in exercising any of their powers under the planning acts, consider carefully the contents of the national park plan and take into account the extent to which it is material. Planning authorities will not be able simply to ignore a national park plan.
Amendment 70 would delete subsection (2) of new section 264A proposed by the same paragraph of schedule 5, which was inserted at stage 2 by an amendment lodged by Murray Tosh—although, as I recall, it was moved by Alex Fergusson. The concern behind that amendment was that the national park plan should be fully considered in the context of the town and country planning system. However, the amendment does not have that effect; indeed, it has caused some concerns. I shall try to explain why.
Subsection (2) gives a national park plan the same status as any relevant local plan or plans as a material consideration. As there can be different plans at different stages, or plans of different ages to which different effect is given—quite appropriately—because of their age or their stage of development, difficulties or restrictions may be caused.
There is also the issue of material consideration: the plan does not necessarily become a material issue in relation to the facts and circumstances of a particular case just because the bill contains a statement that the national park plan should be a material consideration.
The final and most important reason is best explained by quoting Mr John Rennilson, who says:
"I strongly believe, both in my capacity as Director of Planning & Development for Highland Council and as the Chairman designate of the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning, that an important technical change remains to be made in the Bill with respect to Planning.
Schedule 5 at paragraph 15 is proposing to insert into the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Section 264A(2)"—
if I am able to read this fax accurately—
"as a result of an amendment approved in Committee at Stage 2. The text of the amendment is such as to give a National Park Plan ‘the same status as any relevant local plan or plans as a material consideration'. Cross-reference to Section 25 of the 1997 Planning Act however makes it quite clear that development plans—Structure and Local Plans—-have a higher status than material considerations. Accordingly the current position in the National Park Bill explicitly down-grades the status of Local Plans. I am sure that that was not the intention of the mover of the amendment nor would be the intention of the Minister."
I am sure that Mr Rennilson is correct and that that would not be the intention of the Parliament.
I move amendment 69.
The original amendment that appeared before the Rural Affairs Committee in my name was framed entirely by me, so any technical deficiency in it is my responsibility. The amendment was lodged to reflect concerns expressed by a number of parties in evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee about the precise status of the national park plan in relation to the approved development plan.
At the committee, the minister undertook to address the issue. I had intended to oppose amendment 70, but having heard the minister's explanation and the cross-references to other issues, I am happy to accept that subsection (2), as inserted in committee, does not meet my objective in lodging the amendment. Amendment 69, in so far as it strengthens that objective and helps to clarify the status of national park plans, should be accepted.
I stress that the phrase "material consideration" picked up directly concerns that were raised by many witnesses, in particular about the imprecision of the phrase "special attention". The bill is now stronger and clearer. I hope that it will address adequately the concerns that were expressed by a variety of planning interests—but that perhaps remains to be seen in the interpretation and in the guidance and subordinate legislation that will be introduced later. I understand that considerable planning matters arising from the bill will be dealt with in secondary legislation.
I will not press amendments 69 and 70 to a vote. I am content with what the minister has said.
Amendment 69 agreed to.
Amendment 70 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
That concludes the consideration of amendments.