National Parks
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1548, in the name of Michael Russell, on national parks.
Today's debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government's thinking on the future of our national parks. At the outset, I want to say with enthusiasm how exceptionally important our national parks are to Scotland. Indeed, their iconic landscapes put Scotland on the international stage. I also pay tribute to Sarah Boyack, who, as Minister for Transport and the Environment, steered through the legislation. I believe that the National Parks (Scotland) Bill was her first bill as a minister. It stands as testimony to her.
There is enthusiasm across the chamber for the national parks, and we need to build on that. The parks demonstrate sustainable solutions for rural development and environmental protection, and contribute to the Government's greener Scotland and other objectives. There are many examples of how they do that, which, no doubt, will be raised in the debate.
In the five years since the parks were established, they have made good progress. The first-ever national park plans are in place and are being implemented. Many stakeholders are involved under the leadership of the national park authorities. Mike Cantley and Dave Green, the conveners of the national parks, are in the gallery with some of their colleagues. I am sure that everyone who is involved in the parks realises that the time is right for the review that is due to take place. For example, we are committed to simplifying the public sector landscape. It is time for us to ask ourselves some questions and to seek answers.
I will address three issues: the strategic review; the boundary review; and future national park designation. The strategic review of national park functions, which will start in May, will cover both the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national parks. At the moment, each park is an executive non-departmental public body in the shape of a national park authority. We want to look at the arrangements and see what the alternatives are. We also want to learn from experience elsewhere. We recognise that national parks are not the same in every country, but that lessons can be learned nonetheless.
The review will be in two parts. The first stage will address key questions on the organisation of the bodies that run the parks and consider what sort of body should undertake national park functions. I expect it to look at a number of organisational options, including—centrally—the retention of the national park authorities as separate NDPBs. In talking of the review, I want to stress one point only: the primacy of the local democratic element. That element has served the parks well and it needs to come to the fore—indeed, if anything, it needs to be strengthened.
The first stage review will consider employer arrangements—the sort of issues that are being considered across the public sector—and seek views across a wide spectrum. It will be steered by a group on which the existing national park authorities will be represented. Consultation will also take place with the many park stakeholders. The first stage review will present the pros and cons of different models for running the national parks. I give members the commitment not only that we will publish the review findings, but that we hope to debate them. We will also consult on them.
Did the minister say that he accepted that the two parks should remain separate, or that this is part of a review to put them together? Will he make that clear?
I am unlikely to merge the parks physically—that would require more than I am capable of.
Surely not.
Jackie Baillie seems to believe that I could achieve even that, but I think that that is unlikely. On the separation of the parks, given that I have spoken of the primacy of the local community, I do not imagine that arrangements are being considered to merge the organisational activity for the parks.
The second stage of the review, which will start in the autumn, will deal with more detailed operational matters, such as planning powers and the role in housing. I hope that all members realise that the review will be an opportunity to think thoughts and that it has not been pre-empted. I make the assurance absolutely that it certainly is not modelled on any report that members may have seen being discussed in the newspapers at the weekend. The review is a genuine opportunity, although I pay tribute to Neil Kay for thinking thoughts, as that is what academics do and he does it very well.
I turn to boundaries, specifically the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park. Members are familiar with the issue. In the previous session of Parliament, John Swinney introduced the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill—I was not here, but I read about it in the newspapers. The bill would have extended the park to include Blair Atholl and parts of highland and eastern Perthshire. It would also have made changes to the provisions on the local authority nominees on the park board. The Environment and Rural Development Committee heard evidence and agreed that there were persuasive arguments. It also noted that the communities of highland and eastern Perthshire felt that inclusion in the park would bring social and economic benefits to the area. The committee concluded that a strong case had been made.
Although the previous Administration did not support the bill, Sarah Boyack made it clear that it would be for ministers at the time to decide how the national park review would address the boundary issue. As there is clear evidence that the southern boundary of the park needs to be changed, I intend to implement that change. Therefore, today, I am appointing Scottish Natural Heritage to prepare a report on the new boundary that Mr Swinney proposed. We will make the change after due process has been completed.
Although there is a clear-cut body of evidence for proceeding with that boundary change, the same is not true of other proposed changes in the two national parks. I therefore intend that the national parks review will address the case for boundary changes elsewhere as part of the second phase of the review. If the review concludes that other proposals for boundary change have sufficient substance and are supported by the community—I make that point strongly—they could be referred at a later stage for formal evaluation.
The minister's announcement on the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park is most welcome, but I seek clarity on one issue. On what date is it proposed to bring about the change?
All members will accept that the process in the legislation for making changes is slightly cumbersome. If SNH appoints a reporter now, I hope that the process for the boundary change can be aligned with the review process. Therefore, my expectation is that the changes will come at about the turn of the year or early next year. The boundary change process will be aligned with the review, so that if other changes are to be made, we will not be acting in a piecemeal fashion. However, we have certainly accepted the boundary change—it will happen and, I hope, within that timescale.
The national park review that I have announced will be strategic and fundamental, in that it will consider the organisation arrangements for national park functions. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the review should also consider possible criteria for future national park designation. In doing so, the review will need to build on the foundations of the original legislation. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 lays down three conditions. First, the area should be
"of outstanding national importance because of its natural heritage or the combination of its natural and cultural heritage".
Secondly, the area should have
"a distinctive character and a coherent identity".
The third condition is that the designation
"would meet the special needs of the area"
and ensure
"that the National Park aims are … achieved … in a co-ordinated way."
That work will be undertaken in the second stage of the review, once we have addressed the question of how national park functions should be delivered. There is also the question of coastal or marine national parks, although we have made it clear that we do not intend to take a position on their possible role in advance of the enactment of the proposed marine legislation.
For the third time, I stress that communities must be seen as central to the national park process. I am a strong supporter of community-led initiatives. It makes sense for the Government to consider national park designation where communities are supportive. Recently, I was approached by the community trust in North Harris, which believes that national park designation would benefit that island area. I believe that the North Harris Trust will announce today that it intends to consult the wider electorate in the area for its views on seeking national park designation and, if possible, to do more work on that. I strongly support that initiative.
I have made it clear in a meeting with representatives of the North Harris Trust that I cannot give a commitment to any group that such a process will necessarily lead to a new designation. There are, of course, funding issues to be considered. My duty would be to weigh up the case that is made by the community, alongside the statutory considerations. In addition, we have a tight spending review. However, if the community trust moves forward in that way, by consulting the community, it will be a model for others to follow, in which community initiative drives forward the process of possible designation.
I have given only an outline of the review—I am sure that my friend Mr Lochhead will go into much more detail when he responds to the debate—but I hope that it indicates not only our openness of mind on future structures, but our strong commitment to the two areas that are designated and to the communities there. I am happy to note that both the Labour and Tory amendments take account of that and are encouraging about taking the review forward.
I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Liberal Democrat amendment because it would very much tie the hands of the review. Mr Rumbles asks, from a seated position, in what way it would do that. I will give a specific response. As members know—particularly those who represent the area that is covered by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park—there is an issue around the ability of the parks as non-departmental public bodies to dispose of assets and to reinvest those resources in the running of the park. The present dispensation of the park does not allow that, so it is important that the review considers ways in which that might change. Tying the review to the exact existing model, as the Liberal Democrat amendment would do, would create considerable difficulty. I would have been happy to accept a Liberal amendment in which the wording had been amended, and I am sorry that that Mr Hume did not accept that, despite discussion.
I hope that members can coalesce around three clear principles: first, that the review will be positive and forward looking, and will attempt to build on the undoubted great success of the national parks; secondly, that the review will consider the possibility of including other areas and developing the functions of the national parks; and thirdly, that where communities are keen to be involved in a national park movement, they have an opportunity at least to tell the people of Scotland that they have that interest. In those senses, therefore, I am happy to commend the motion to the chamber and I hope that it will be a positive step forward, which will enhance what has already happened in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the forthcoming strategic review of Scotland's two national parks; welcomes the opportunities that the national parks give to Scotland's citizens and visitors, and in particular commends their contribution to the greener Scotland agenda.
Zhou Enlai was the premier of the People's Republic of China until 1976. As members may know, he was famous for his skill as a diplomat, as a participant at the Geneva conference and as an historian. He is probably best remembered, though, for his response, when asked for his assessment of the 1789 French revolution, which was, "It is too early to say."
Some may argue today that it is too early to say how effective our national parks have been in meeting the four key objectives that were set out in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. As the minister said, the act was piloted through the Parliament by my parliamentary friend—and indeed boss—Sarah Boyack. Labour members thank the board members and staff of both national parks, some of whom are here today, for their enthusiasm, dedication and leadership, and for the progress that has been made over the years.
Does the member agree with me—and, indeed, with the minister—that one of the great success stories of the national parks is the directly elected element of local representation?
I strongly agree with that; in fact, I will reach that issue later in my speech.
That progress has included the provision of eco-tourism at Loch Lomond and community action planning in the Cairngorms national park.
Taking a step back in time, members will be well aware that the founding father of national parks was a Scot, John Muir, who left Dunbar as a young man for a life in America. His efforts led to the development of the worldwide national parks movement. John Muir was influential in setting up Yellowstone national park in 1872, which was signed into law by President Ulysses S Grant. In the United Kingdom, James Bryce campaigned at Westminster in 1879 for the establishment of national parks. The Ramsay report of 1945 recommended five national parks and three reserve areas.
Coming closer to the modern day, in 1990 the Countryside Commission for Scotland recommended four national parks, consistent with the principles established by the Ramsay report.
National parks have been a reality throughout the world for many years. The key question that historians might ask is why Scotland took so long to create its first two national parks. We can leave that debate to them, but we must get on and ensure that our national parks are fulfilling their roles and responsibilities.
The other day, I read the Official Report of the debates in the Parliament on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. I was struck by the passion and enthusiasm of members across the political divide, many of whom are here today. Members argued strongly about the principles and provisions of the bill. They discussed the idea of having parks of national importance, but with local communities at their heart—the minister referred to that—and flexibility to allow for the "distinctiveness of different areas" of Scotland; to let local people decide things for themselves; to sustain people and resources; and to develop a "thriving rural economy" while sustaining "natural and cultural heritage."
Reading the Official Report, I was struck by the bipartisan approach in the chamber, with emphasis being placed on innovation, partnership and the integration of aims—the overlapping circles—in the social, the economic and the environmental. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 was built on the well-developed Sandford principle. Lord Sandford, as members know, was a Tory peer who chaired the national parks review in England and Wales in 1974. He said that national parks' aims were twofold: to conserve the environment and to provide access to the public. If conflict arose between the two, conservation of the environment would take priority. Although that approach applied to England and Wales, it could be argued that the 2000 act represented Sandford plus in adding economic and social considerations into the mix.
We do not want communities that are situated within the national parks to stand still. Dedicated national parks make it possible to take into account the needs of the whole area when deciding whether a development should take place. The review that the minister announced comes at the right time for us to take stock and compare aspirations with reality, and I believe that it will be welcomed across the spectrum of environmental non-governmental organisations, from RSPB Scotland to the Ramblers Association—and, of course, the John Muir Trust.
I believe strongly that national parks are testament to the value that a nation places on protecting its environment and natural heritage. They are, in effect, the nation's champions. They must work in partnership with local communities and NGOs, for example in protecting biodiversity, tackling climate change, promoting tourism, promoting locally grown food and providing a voice for local people in campaigning for the development of affordable housing.
The debate on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill was about how to balance the sometimes conflicting push for economic development with the pull of social inclusion. There will be different solutions in different areas, but my belief is that a bureaucratic decision made in a bunker at Victoria Quay or St Andrew's house is not the way forward. We do not want national park objectives to be determined by a top-down approach to decision making, in a manner akin to the Kremlin in the Soviet Union deciding on ball-bearing production in the Ukraine. The real benefit of having a national park board that is made up of local councillors is that the needs of the whole area can be considered when a decision is made on whether a particular development should take place.
The structures that have been in place have, by and large, worked. I live a short drive from the northern boundary of the Cairngorms national park, and I have seen at first hand the work being done on LEADER + and the community-based rural development plans. I have seen the work on land management, through the Cairngorms deer advisory group. I have seen the work on renewable energy—supporting green energy, but opposing large-scale conventional wind farms.
In that context, I read with interest Professor Kay's analysis of environmental governance in Scotland. As we have heard, the report was commissioned by the minister. I was a bit disappointed when I saw it trailed in the national press under the headline "National park authorities have a mountain to climb". That article, which was in The Scotsman on 8 March, said:
"A damning report on Scotland's two national parks says they have become a ‘clunky, cumbersome, formal and bureaucratic muddle' and calls for ‘root-and-branch' review of their quango status."
It also refers to the parks being
"rolled back into Scottish National Heritage."
I am sure that the member is aware that I do not write The Scotsman. I am the person who commissioned the report. The member is right to draw attention to the much wider issues that it covers. In talking about national parks, it refers to the important issue of the size of the boards. In fact, the report has many positive things to contribute, which we should consider.
I thank the minister for his comments. His earlier announcements perhaps preoccupied some members in the chamber. The minister should by all means look at the positive aspects of the Kay report—I am sure that there are some—but I suggest in a friendly manner that he reject the idea that SNH should take over the management of the two boards, on the basis of the political principle that if it ain't broke, why fix it?
There is a great opportunity to review the park boundaries, which the minister has covered. I was going to say that one does not have to be the Brahan seer to predict that that will be part of the Government's plans for later in the session—clearly, I had a bit of foresight.
Transport is a key aspect of the national park, particularly in respect of tourism. I ask the minister to raise with Stewart Stevenson the important issue of the link between Dunoon and Gourock, which is important as a link to the national park. I would be grateful if he would clarify the role of CalMac Ferries in that regard.
This is an excellent debate. We welcome the opportunity to debate national parks. Establishing the national parks in the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs was one of the flagship achievements of the earliest days of the Parliament—it was an embodiment of the success of devolution. In practice, it fulfilled the Labour Party's commitment to create national parks.
We join a worldwide family of illustrious names, such as Yellowstone in the United States; the royal national park in Australia; and Kruger park in South Africa. National parks are firmly on the Scottish radar screen as an integral part of our rural landscape. I am convinced that John Muir himself would have approved.
I move amendment S3M-1548.2, to insert at end:
"and believes that the following issues should be included for specific consideration in the review: the effectiveness of the national parks in achieving the main objectives set out in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, the success of the national parks in building community engagement and involvement in the development of both parks, and whether the boundaries of the parks should be reviewed."
I declare an interest as a farmer, although I farm outwith the national park boundaries—as they stand at the moment. I welcome the debate and the minister's announcement of changes to the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park, although I doubt that it will extend as far south as Ayrshire. I also welcome the wide-ranging nature of the review. I know that it is music to the ears of many of the minister's colleagues and many of mine—particularly Murdo Fraser, who has campaigned tirelessly for many years to extend the park boundary.
I welcome the minister's remarks about the need for the review, which will start in May, and I commend Sarah Boyack for her foresight as promoter of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and for creating what we have today.
Scottish Conservatives have for many years supported the concept of national parks. I stayed in the Banff national park in Alberta in 1997 and saw for myself the benefit of a well-run national park and what it could bring to the community and the environment. The model of the Banff national park—Canada's oldest national park, which was established in 1885—where the terrain and climate are so similar to those in Scotland is one from which our existing park authorities could learn lessons in developing tourism, particularly eco-tourism, and environmental enhancement. Having seen that fine example, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. The Canadian national parks, which are much larger than ours, have been in existence for many years. It would be well worth our learning from the lessons that have been learned there in achieving the pinnacle of excellence that has been reached.
There is absolute support throughout the chamber for the delivery of the aims and objectives of our national parks, but it appears that the governance structures of our park authorities need further examination. I took on board some of Professor Kay's comments, and his analysis of our national park board structures, which highlighted the size and cost of running a 25-member board for each park authority. I question whether a board of that size is absolutely necessary—I see that Jackie Baillie is shaking her head.
The important point is surely not the size of the board, but how effective it is and what it delivers. Does the member agree that some of the conclusions that were drawn in that report—and, in particular, some of the numbers that were used—are inaccurate?
I cannot say whether they are inaccurate, but I respect Professor Kay's report. It has been acknowledged, and I would be the first to acknowledge, that in setting up the two national park authorities, it might have been necessary—I think that this is the point Jackie Baillie is trying to make—to draw on the expertise of many people to assist in the complex processes of creating the valuable entities that we have today.
Will the member give way?
I want to press on.
Tribute should be paid to those who have carried out and seen through that developmental phase. However, the purpose of the review, which the legislation provides for, is to find out whether the model can be improved upon to deliver what the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 obliges park authorities to do, which is:
"to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area … to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area … to promote understanding and enjoyment"
of the area's special qualities, and
"to promote … economic and social development of the area's communities."
Having established our national parks, we must move to the next stage and refine and improve on what we have achieved. From my experience—I am tempted to say bitter experience, but it is best not to—I know that a board size of 25 is unwieldy and can be unworkable. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, SNH and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which have annual expenditures of £59 million, £59 million and £103 million respectively, have non-executive board sizes of 11, 15 and 10. One has to compare those budgets with the Loch Lomond National Park Authority budget of £7.4 million and the Cairngorms National Park Authority budget of £5 million. It is easy to see that there are good reasons to ask questions.
It is also easy to see that the board member remuneration as a cost relative to the total annual expenditure of each park authority is significant—I agree with Professor Kay on that. However, setting aside the cost and size of the board—and before criticism is levelled at me for knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing—it is important to take the opportunity that the review offers to examine where the parks go from here.
Scottish Conservatives welcome the Minister for Environment's announcement on extending the boundary of the Cairngorms national park. Under the review, we believe that both national park authorities should on balance be retained, but with much-reduced board sizes of a minimum of eight and a maximum of perhaps 12. We believe in local democracy and representation, and in a grass-roots approach that takes into account local public opinion and does not impose top-down solutions. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report helpfully pointed that out last week.
That is why we welcome the review, and we hope that those who undertake it reach elegant and consensual conclusions that build on the good work that has been done in creating the parks and getting them to where they are today. My colleagues will deal with planning issues around affordable housing and local feeling, and with some of the problems that are still to be ironed out.
I move amendment S3M-1548.1, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Scottish Government to address concerns regarding the structural effectiveness of the national park authorities as presently constituted with a view to enhancing local participation and to address ongoing issues with regard to the southern boundary of the Cairngorms National Park."
Scotland's two national parks provide valuable and, more important, unique assets. The previous Executive, and Sarah Boyack in particular, led the way on the protection and enhancement of Scotland's landscapes with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The previous Executive also established the Scottish landscape forum, initiated the revision of planning guidance and introduced policies on Scotland's historic environment, as well as agri-environment schemes. It also passed the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 that established the two national parks in 2002 and 2003. In 2005, Ross Finnie, the Lib Dem Minister for Environment and Rural Development announced the intention to create a coastal and marine national park, which, it is hoped, will be delivered by 2008. Mr Russell mentioned that, and we look forward to that being progressed. I mention those developments to illustrate the point that we need to invest in managing our landscapes to ensure that the people who live in and visit them use them sustainably and enjoy them.
We have had debates on the value of open spaces to our health and wellbeing, the value of preserving our natural heritage and the role of landscapes and environments such as national parks in helping to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We also debated recently the importance of forestry to Scotland's economic success. There is still huge potential to develop our market share of renewables. Land managers can work with the national parks to make a real difference in progressing renewable energy and sustainable transport projects. The national parks stand to make a significant contribution to the Scottish climate change programme too.
As common sense would suggest and as we can all see, there are basic environmental and socioeconomic benefits in using and managing our national parks in the right way. They are areas of land that have been specifically set up with not only conservation in mind, but the social and economic aim of supporting the 31,000-strong population living within their bounds. Perhaps even more people will live there in future, according to Mr Russell.
The two parks must be recognised as distinct, which is the point of our amendment. They need separate, responsive authorities with locally accountable members on their boards. That is what differentiates Scotland's national parks from other similar areas in the United Kingdom. Included in the parks' objectives and aims should always be a focus on social and economic progress and development.
That brings me to the key point of my amendment. The park authorities' socioeconomic objectives of promoting the sustainable development of the local communities within its perimeters are hugely important. Effective management of the land should mean job creation, job opportunity and enterprise. We are creating a place in which people want to work and live, and we are supporting the communities that live there.
The future of the two park authorities is unclear. Mr Russell said that he was interested in keeping two authorities, but he does not support our amendment, so there is some confusion, which I am sure that Mr Lochhead will clarify in his summing up. Professor Neil Kay's recent report recommends a root-and-branch review of their functions and suggests that they should be rolled into SNH. I strongly disagree with that.
I am pleased that Jim Hume is quoting Professor Kay, and I will set his mind at rest on the issue of two parks. I may not agree with Professor Kay on everything, but the member will want to agree with what it says at the bottom of page 28 of his report:
"There should be no arguments or grounds supporting such fears"—
the fears being about the merging or loss of identity of the two separate parks. I confirm that on the record.
I was actually talking about park authorities. If their roles are reviewed, the autonomy of the two national park authorities should be recognised—that is the point. The Government should ensure that there will be no impact on either their objectives or their freedom and flexibility. As John Scott mentioned, it is obviously important to streamline any organisation to ensure its efficiency, particularly when public money is involved. However, whatever the outcome, the minister must ensure that the work and aims of the two authorities are not compromised in any way.
A core Liberal Democrat value is that decisions should be made as close to where the effects occur as possible and by people who are affected. It is therefore vital, whatever changes occur in future, that elected members, practitioners and grass-roots stakeholders are fully integrated into the decision-making process and that the park authorities are given freedom to make appropriate decisions for their areas. In other words, it should be regional rather than centralised decision making. That goes to the heart of the review and, bearing that in mind, full consideration should be given to the existing park boundaries. I am glad that Mr Russell is considering the southern boundary of one park.
I hope that, whatever happens with the upcoming quinquennial review of the national parks, the Scottish Government will ensure a prosperous future for our national parks. I am concerned that the natural heritage budget will reduce in real terms by 0.9 per cent, so I hope that the Parliament will support my amendment and recognise the socioeconomic benefits of the national parks and their two governing authorities. I hope that the Parliament will agree that they should be kept as national bodies with at least five directly elected board members to allow the flexibility and responsiveness that they need to deliver benefits for all at their local level.
I am happy to move, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, amendment S3M-1548.3, to insert at end:
"welcomes the quinquennial review as an opportunity to examine the operation of the park authorities and any proposed boundary changes; believes that the park authorities' national body status and strong directly elected presence provides the parks with the freedom and flexibility to carry out their unique statutory objectives and to meet the needs of very different park areas across Scotland; considers that any attempt to roll up the park authorities with Scottish Natural Heritage would hamper the parks' capability to achieve these objectives, would damage local accountability and democracy and could have serious conflict of interest ramifications, and therefore calls for the forthcoming strategic review of the national parks to retain the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority and the Cairngorms National Park Authority as national bodies with at least five directly elected board members."
It is a pleasure to talk about the next phase in the development of the national parks. I watched the process from the sidelines during the first parliamentary session and I was involved in debates about boundary changes in the second session, so I am glad that we will have a review that takes account of how we trust local people to make decisions. In that respect, I agree totally with RSPB Scotland that the
"parks must focus more attention on delivering against the first objective, including biodiversity protection and enhancement."
That must include the biodiversity of the human population in the parks, too. It is best for decisions to be made by the people who live in the area.
The thinking behind how the park boards were established was that people who live in the area needed to have board members appointed nationally in order for the job to be done. Like John Scott and, I think, the Liberals, I suggest that we have reached the stage at which a national park board can be directly elected locally and can consult the experts who require to back up decisions. In relation to Neil Kay's report, the strategic review could make the case for a directly elected park board with absolutely no appointees. That would be a good democratic way forward that would recognise, as local people do, that local people's future is at stake.
When he read the Kay report, my fellow nationalist David Fallows, who is the councillor for the Badenoch and Strathspey ward, said that he was worried. He said:
"we fought long and hard for a clear and strong element of local democracy within the Park. We accepted that the Park was a National asset—but at the same time emphasised that the Park was our Park—the land where we live and work and where we have staked our hopes for our futures and those of our generations to follow."
That statement expresses the view that people are growing in confidence about taking on the job of running the national parks on the nation's behalf, with the support of bodies such as SNH. I commend that view to ministers.
Other aspects of rationalisation could save money. If a board were smaller, more money would be available to spend up front on the work that the national parks must do. That would be a strong argument in tight financial times.
Quite a bit of debate has been had about the planning functions. I agree with the argument of various groups, including Ramblers Scotland and the RSPB, that planning functions in the Cairngorms should be firmed up. It is possible to see that happening, but agreement is needed about what we expect from planning in the Cairngorms and in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. We want a much firmer approach to sustainable economic development in the housing that is built there. As tourism is the parks' primary source of income and employment, people who provide services to tourism need to be able to live inside the parks rather than have to travel into them for work. That issue is fundamental because of property prices.
I agree with the Cairngorms National Park Authority that it is essential that
"The demand for housing must also be managed to ensure high environmental and sustainability standards."
If the national parks are centres of excellence, the planning functions ought to ensure much higher standards for housing in the parks than apply outside the parks. Such housing should be very eco-friendly.
Should the housing fair that has been set up in the green wedge at Inverness have taken place in the Cairngorms national park? Should we not save that green wedge and set an example for the housing that should be built? Such housing is not necessarily more expensive, but it is of far better quality for the future. That is the way in which the national parks could look after the human population's biodiversity. I hope that the review will consider that.
I join other members in thanking the minister for his comments on the extension of the Cairngorms national park, but national parks are not likely to stay static. New ones will be created, if people wish that to happen and the process is followed. The boundary changes in north Perthshire are welcome, given that that was the overwhelming view taken in the previous Parliament. I am sorry that some of the members who spoke in favour of the boundary change today did not vote for it in the previous Parliament, or we would have had it.
Let us finish on a high note—there were people who saw things correctly. I hope that in future we can point to new areas that can become centres of excellence and enable national parks to do a cutting-edge job that people look up to, not only in terms of what John Muir wanted, but by the standards that we have to meet today for Scotland to set an example to the rest of the world and lead the fight against climate change.
I was proud to be involved in the original scrutiny of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and the subsequent setting up of national parks in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and in the Cairngorms. That was some time ago and it is only right that after a time the parks should be reviewed, but to my mind they have been a great success.
I remember the concerns of the community in the Cairngorms. People were worried about what the setting up of a national park in their area would mean. Those communities had worked the land and protected the environment for generations. Because of those concerns, the aims of the parks were set out with equal weight to give communities the reassurance that the appropriate balance between their needs and the needs of the environment would be protected.
The aims of the parks are to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area; to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area; to promote the understanding and enjoyment, including enjoyment in the form of recreation, of the special qualities of the area by the public; and to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities.
A perception in the Highlands and Islands is that the environment is often given greater weight than the needs of local communities. That is why it was crucial to move SNH nearer to the people that it works with, so that it could build an understanding of their concerns and work more closely with the communities that it serves. People who live in beautiful rural areas have the same needs as their urban counterparts: jobs and public services. We need to protect our beautiful environment but we must also protect the people who live and work there and ensure that their needs are met.
I am pleased that when the National Park (Scotland) Bill was drafted, sustainable economic and social development were built in. That has led to the success of our national parks. The bill also left enough flexibility to deal with local circumstances and needs. The concern in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs was that their area was overheating and risked being spoiled by too much development, while the Cairngorms required more sustainable development.
Planning powers were different for both parks, as local circumstances were taken into account. That was hugely contentious, but it has worked well. Some have called for the same planning arrangements to be put in place for all parks, but I believe that we need to be alive to local concerns when we create new parks and that there should be flexibility in how planning is carried out in the parks.
One fear in the Cairngorms was that the park board would be run by faceless people who were not interested in or aware of the needs of the community. That fear has not been borne out and the park board works well with its communities.
Professor Neil Kay seemed to suggest in his review of environmental governance last year that SNH should run national parks in Scotland. That would be a disaster. We need to bring governance to the people and the current set up does just that. I would be against asking SNH to run the parks, because that would have the opposite effect. It would jeopardise the future economic and social development of the areas and local democracy would be lost. Local people and local councillors would no longer be involved and planning powers would be centralised. Those were the fears that had to be allayed when we first set up the national parks.
SNH works closely with park boards, as it should do, but its role is very different to that of the park board. SNH brings its own expertise to the table, as do other bodies who work with the park board. It is then for the park board to balance the requirements of those organisations with the requirements of the board as laid down in the 2000 act.
It is crucial to involve local communities. The Cairngorms national park has started community needs assessments, which involve listening to the needs of each small community and including those in their planning. Ramblers Scotland points out that the park has limited finance to carry out the communities' wishes, but the exercise is also helpful to the other public bodies that work with the board. There is a duty on other public bodies to work with the park authority to implement the national park plan. The community consultation work enables the park authority to feed back local needs to those bodies, which allows them to work together to fulfil local ambitions. The park board sets up the park plan and all the public bodies need to implement it. The work with local communities informs the way forward for the board and the other agencies that work in the area.
Another initiative that the Cairngorms National Park Authority is pursuing is the park brand. That was raised when we worked on the legislation. We discussed the economic benefit to producers in the park versus the restrictions and costs that are involved in implementing stringent guidelines. Use of the park brand is conditional on meeting the standards that the board sets for quality and environmental impact. The branding has been successful with the tourism industry and local producers are beginning to use it. When a business meets the standards, use of the brand is free. That enables small businesses to use the park brand in marketing and promoting their products.
Similar marketing has taken place with the creation of destination management organisations. Those small businesses are assisted by VisitScotland and the park board to market the area, to involve local people in working in tourism, and to highlight the importance of tourism to the local economy.
I welcome the review, but I sound a note of caution. The parks have worked well, and they have certainly exceeded the expectations of many of the communities that they serve. It is important that the review builds on that and does not throw away good practice or the developments that have taken place. I hope that the review will also examine the boundaries. I note what the minister said about the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park, but I sincerely hope that that does not mean that anyone who wants to talk about the other boundaries cannot feed their comments into the review.
The boards must continue to be rooted in their local communities, working with local people to ensure the success of the national parks.
The two national parks play a significant part in my region. They are both young, although they are growing up, and at present they need encouragement rather than interference. Professor Kay is a fine academic and I feel that I know him well, having read many of his works on the Dunoon ferry service, which delivers people to the Argyll forest area of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. I will comment on some of the issues that are identified in his report, and on some of my concerns, but first I will highlight the positive aspects of the national parks.
The other week, I had a meeting in Grantown with the convener of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, David Green. I am particularly interested in the work that the authority is doing to offer training to land-based businesses. The training is benefiting estates, farms, crofts, forestry, fishing, horticulture, nurseries and outdoor recreation providers in the park. Indeed, any business that is related to the management or use of the land is benefiting. Environmental courses on deer stalking, black grouse management, mole control, water margin management and dry-stone dyking are vital in maintaining traditional skills. There is so little agricultural training nowadays that those courses are all the more important.
Public-benefit courses that have been delivered through the training programme include ones on the Scottish outdoor access code, Cairngorms wildlife, tick control and heather management, and catering for the less-able visitor. The CNPA has received positive comments from businesses and organisations about the training. Last year, more than 800 people from 182 businesses in the Cairngorms national park benefited from the project and said so.
In the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, a community training programme runs useful courses on a range of subjects including how community organisations can better access funding streams. I am also impressed by the work that the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority is doing to increase apprenticeships in the park and to encourage businesses in the park to make use of the latest information technology.
An issue of concern that my constituents in the Cairngorms national park have raised with me is the requirement on developers in the park to make up to 50 per cent of new homes in a development affordable homes. Although we share the aim of having more affordable homes, will imposing a punitive requirement for an extra 25 per cent of affordable homes on a developer or house builder produce more homes or lead to fewer? I would like the minister to comment on that, if possible, because it is doubling a tax that, at best, is beginning to look inefficient. I would be interested to hear the minister's views on that when he sums up.
Given that both NPAs have been up and running for about five years, it makes sense to examine and take stock of their performance. Professor Kay identifies an excess of bureaucracy in the NPAs, and the Scottish Conservatives are always prepared to consider a reduction in bureaucracy so that money can be focused on delivery at a local level. As John Scott said, it might be true that the number of board members should be assessed to reduce expenditure, and we should probably debate that.
What really matters is that the park is run so that it is a success. I have concerns about the suggestion to strip the two NPAs of their separate status and merge them with SNH. Constituents who have contacted me in light of Saturday's coverage in The Scotsman are concerned about and opposed to that suggestion, which would be a backwards step. Anyone who remembers the consultations in the run-up to the creation of the parks will remember, as I do, that the main cause of concern in the communities affected was that SNH might run them. I would not be wrong in saying that most local people would consider domination by SNH to be a form of colonialism and therefore quite unthinkable.
Before the member becomes totally carried away, I will make clear something that I clarified on Saturday when I was consulted about The Scotsman story. The rolling up of the two park authorities into SNH is incompatible with the local democracy that I want at the forefront. I have been happy to say that to any member who raised the issue with me this week and I say it again now, on the record, so that people understand it.
Excellent; keep saying it.
I would be happy to keep saying it to Jackie Baillie forever.
I am delighted to hear the minister reiterate that.
Ministers will conduct a formal review of the Scottish national parks later in the year and Professor Kay's report will no doubt influence that process. They will, however, need to tread with caution and should not compromise our national parks' independence. I was glad to hear the minister mention the primacy of local input in his speech.
I highlight the positive work that goes on in our national parks while acknowledging that improvements could be made. I urge ministers to treat Professor Kay's report with caution. I support the amendment in the name of my colleague, John Scott.
We probably agree that it is time to review where we are with the national parks. However, I will start with a quotation from some wonderful spin that I found on the web:
"For the visitor interested in wildlife, Braemar has long held great attractions. There must be few villages where one can take an early morning walk along the village main street and have a good chance of meeting, one after the other, a magnificent 13 pointer stag, a shy Roe Deer, Red Squirrels stealing nuts put out for the birds, a cock pheasant strutting in all his finery, and a big brown hare timidly exploring the possibility of access to some of the gardens, while overhead Golden Eagles and buzzards sail silent, missing nothing."
The interesting thing about the quotation is not its excess, which is obvious to us all, but that it mentions the wildlife that we seek to preserve in our countryside. The chances of meeting them on an early morning walk in Braemar might be pretty low, but they are there and they are one of the good reasons for preserving our parks.
If members have any doubts at all about the landscape that we are trying to preserve, I simply point them to the "Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007", to which I will refer later. It contains all sorts of wonderful small pictures that remind one of places that one has been to and how magnificent they are.
The issue that we are discussing is whether the structures for the governance and management of the parks should be reviewed. I remind members that if we go to the professionals, we will find that a management consultant is someone who borrows our watch to tell us the time and then walks off with it. During the review process, we need to be extremely careful about keeping our eyes on what we are doing.
I turn to the "Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007" and some of the action points that it contains, in an effort to find out whether we can derive some ideas about the review. There are, I think, eight priorities for action in the plan. They are about
"Conserving and Enhancing Biodiversity … Integrating Public Support for Land Management … Supporting Sustainable Deer Management … Providing High Quality Opportunities for Outdoor Access … Making Tourism and Business More Sustainable … Making Housing More Affordable and Sustainable … Raising Awareness and Understanding of the Park".
One would have thought that that was a pretty wide canvas to start with.
If we look at the strategic objectives, we find phrases such as
"Conserve and enhance … Engage all sectors … Promote access to appropriate policy and funding mechanisms … Develop awareness … Prevent degradation and erosion of soils … Develop a sound knowledge and understanding of the cultural traditions"—
I might question that particular objective—
"Help communities, businesses and households … Promote sustainable flood management … Adopt a catchment-scale approach to water … Develop … Encourage … Maintain … Promote".
It seems to me that the activities that the plan covers, which I am sure are highly laudable and which I am not trying to denigrate, are extremely wide ranging.
That point is emphasised when one turns to the priorities for action—it is good that the plan contains priorities for action. Some of the acronyms that are listed on page 102 are
"ADMG, CNPA … DCS … NGOs … SGA … LECs".
The acronyms "ACCC" and "RA" are two of the many others mentioned on page 107. In fact, there are 25 other acronyms, which account for considerably more organisations.
I say all that not to be disparaging about anyone, but merely to emphasise to members that the parks have an extraordinarily complicated function. If we acknowledge that, we will recognise that the simple solution of taking two bodies and merging them with another one is perhaps a little too simple.
I encourage the ministers to put all the organisations' connections on one piece of paper—perhaps we should borrow Jim Mather for that—to determine whether we can identify the real lines of communication and the real points of action that underlie the overall structure. That is a slightly bigger exercise than is currently being talked about.
If we do that, I suggest that there is a pretty good chance that we will come up with a good answer, whereas if we do not do that, I fear that there is a real chance that we will come up with a rather theoretical answer. That would be a pity, because we are hearing that the current system is working pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is a pretty good rule in most walks of life, so I encourage us to have a review that is consistent with what is actually going on. That is my point.
I am fortunate enough to have part of the Cairngorms national park in my region. As well as being a world-class area of outstanding natural environment, the park is home to around 17,000 people in a wide range of diverse communities.
I was a member of the east areas board of Scottish Natural Heritage while the national parks were being set up, and I thoroughly enjoyed being involved in the discussions about their remit, their geographical range and the governance issues involved. I welcome the minister's announcement on the southern boundaries.
From its early days, I have watched with interest the development of the Cairngorms national park, and I take the opportunity to commend the park authority for its work. The park has developed a strong identity in quite a short time. Many interesting initiatives are being progressed, from tackling affordable housing issues—which is central to ensuring that the park remains sustainable—to setting up a community investment fund and developing new sustainable transport options, such as the heather hopper.
From the outset, the park authority demonstrated a determination to connect with local communities and to take a consensual approach, as far as possible, to the determination of aims and objectives. The board carried out a comprehensive consultation on its park plan and I was particularly pleased at the efforts that it made to engage with young people. Local empowerment is an important principle for Liberal Democrats. We knew that if parks were to be truly effective, the rights of local people to be involved in the decisions that affect them must be enshrined in legislation. In many other national parks, in England for example, tensions between the park and the community regularly arise.
I do not agree with John Scott that a board's size should be directly related to the size of its annual budget. Although SEPA, HIE and even SNH are important agencies, none has the scope that park authorities have to impact on people's lives in many ways. The reach of park authorities goes far beyond their direct expenditure.
I merely refer—
Please speak into your microphone, Mr Scott.
I beg your pardon.
On the size of boards, I refer to the Nolan principles, which were laid down some years ago but have stood the passage of time and work extremely well. The recommendation is that the most effective board has eight to 12 members.
We might regard national park authorities as more akin to local authorities than to other quango boards, given the scope of their work.
Scotland came somewhat late to the setting up of national parks, so we had an opportunity to learn from and improve on earlier models. I single out our success in two areas. First, national parks in Scotland differ from many parks around the world in that they have a social and economic development aim alongside the aims of conservation, understanding and enjoyment of the countryside. There is an explicit recognition of the importance of the people who live and work in the park.
Secondly, the diversity of board members, which has produced a synthesis of local knowledge, national interests and specialisms, has been successful. Boards are tasked with reaching decisions in a collective and co-ordinated manner and have carried out that responsibility well. The involvement of directly elected members and local councillors, as well as other interests, means that boards can speak confidently on behalf of the park's interests and negotiate successfully with the myriad agencies that help to deliver the park's aims.
In the short time that the Cairngorms National Park Authority has been in place, it has built a reputation for openness and accountability. I acknowledge the need to review operations after the first five years, but I would be extremely unhappy if the diversity of the board or the principles of local decision making were threatened in any way.
I am sure that members will join me in echoing the minister's welcome to members and staff of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. I also welcome the Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, because the organisation played a key role in the long journey to having Scotland's first national park at Loch Lomond.
Without question, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park is an area of outstanding natural beauty, which is enjoyed by many people—including me—from throughout Scotland and the world. Of course I am slightly biased, because I am proud to represent the area.
It is clear to me, as it was when the park was established, that the park is very much a living, breathing space and not a wilderness that must be preserved in aspic. That was acknowledged in the park's four aims, one of which is
"To promote sustainable social and economic development of the communities of the area".
Such an aim is not common to national parks elsewhere, as far as I am aware. Of course conservation and sustainability are important, but the explicit recognition that people live and work in the national park was greatly appreciated by people in my area.
I am sure that Mike Russell will forgive me for focusing on Professor Kay's report, which made an interesting read. Mike Russell commissioned the report, so I am delighted that he has rejected one of its key conclusions, which was that boards should somehow be subsumed into SNH. My comments will provide him with an opportunity to join me in rejecting other assumptions in the report.
First, the importance of local community involvement has been ignored. I will share with the Parliament comments made by members way back in 1999 when we first debated the issue early on in the Parliament's existence. The Liberals said:
"The success or failure of the national parks will depend on the extent to which we involve local people in their management."
The Tories agreed, and said:
"there is a vital need for input from the people who live and work in that area."—[Official Report, 8 June 1999; c 349-50.]
Labour's record speaks for itself, but I am delighted to say that we were joined by Fergus Ewing, who quoted a shepherd in similar terms. I am sure that that shepherd has managed to impart a great deal of further wisdom to him.
Handing the national parks and their management to SNH in any shape or form would be wholly wrong. I fundamentally disagree with Rob Gibson on that. First, it is wrong on the basis of accountability, because SNH is currently accountable to ministers. It is hard enough to make it accountable to me and the Parliament, never mind trying to make it accountable to any of my constituents. Contrast that with the national park authority board members: I might not always agree with them—they will testify to that—but they are accountable to local people, I know where to get them and they respond to requests and complaints.
Secondly, the report is wrong on the scope of SNH's role. The assumption is that SNH could somehow manage the national parks when it has no experience of their fourth aim: economic development.
Would the minister like another opportunity to agree with me?
I would be grateful for the opportunity to make a brief point. I have made it clear again and again that I do not regard the option of rolling the parks into SNH as appropriate for local input. Jackie Baillie also makes a strong point about socioeconomic development. However, Professor Kay's recommendation was not to roll the parks into SNH. His recommendations are listed on page 37 of his report, and recommendation 3 simply says:
"A root and branch review of the NDPB status of the National Parks status should be undertaken as soon as possible and alternative forms of governance considered."
We should consider alternative forms of governance, but the one on which Jackie Baillie is spending most time is not one that I favour.
I am delighted to hear that the minister does not favour that option but, if we look at the narrative of the report—I have taken time to read it, given that the minister commissioned it—it is clear that it is Professor Kay's favoured option. We need to remind ourselves that SNH has no current role in economic development, which is a key plank of the national parks, no experience in it and no capacity to deliver on it. I am delighted that the minister and I are at one on that.
Will Jackie Baillie give way?
No, indeed not.
Thirdly, in case there was any doubt, in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, the national park authority is the planning authority, so Professor Kay's suggestion would have SNH in charge of planning too. What then for local accountability and what about the potential conflict of interest?
Michael Russell is indeed wise to reject all that, because it is fundamentally flawed. Of course we should review the efficacy of national parks—although I have to say to Nigel Don that mind maps from Jim Mather are not really the answer—and the review should take into account the lessons learned from the operation of the national parks to date. The issue is not the size of the boards. The Parliament agreed that it wanted national representation, local council representation and direct elections for local people. We wanted that balance and agreed that we needed expertise and local knowledge working together. I say to the minister that that has worked and, as one of his members said—if he will not listen to me, he should at least listen to Nigel Don—if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Ours is a nation of beauty and diversity, and the national park authorities have succeeded in supporting that beauty and diversity since they were granted powers under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.
After five years, it is certainly now appropriate to review those powers, examine how we can make the governing structures more efficient and ensure that the national parks maintain their ability to achieve the four aims that the act set out. However, the key is not to undermine the entire purpose of the parks. That is what we would do if we responded to the review too harshly or too irrationally by making sweeping changes without the slightest regard for the consequences. Any potential changes to the parks must be thoroughly investigated to ensure that we do not lose more than we gain.
Much of the debate has centred on the size of the national park authority boards and the breadth of their jurisdiction in relation to other authorities. Of course, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and the Cairngorms National Park Authority differ in those respects. Any review must examine whether there is still justification for such differences.
Both parks have done a commendable job in responding to the needs of those within their boundaries and are developing an expertise that is representative of the wide range of perspectives and experience within their bounds. With the proper structure and support, there is no doubt that the national parks can provide the most complete and comprehensive services for our communities. However, the review can succeed in improving the parks to make them even stronger and more efficient, if it is carried out sensibly and not in a knee-jerk way. If we overreact negligently and irrationally, we will condemn our national parks to substandard services and an unnecessary fate.
During the review, we must remember the four aims that were set out in the 2000 act: first, to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage; secondly, to promote the sustainable use of the natural resources of the area; thirdly, to promote understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the area; and fourthly, to promote sustainable social and economic development of the communities of the area. The fourth aim is the most important, as without thriving communities there is no point in having a national park.
Handing the keys to an agency that would not meet all four aims would be negligence and a breach of our responsibility. I am glad that today the minister has made it clear that he does not favour that option, but I fear that the suggestion may gain ground in some areas. Even if the option were pursued with the best of intentions, the result for the parks and surrounding communities would be regrettable. Other authorities, already burdened by their current responsibilities, would not be able to give the national parks the attention that they require. Other leaders, already burdened with policy areas and duties, would not be able to focus on the environmental, economic and tourism-related issues that the parks consider and support. Other priorities that were created and are already valued by those with different duties might be given more importance and attention than the priorities that have been set for the parks.
We should allow the parks the authority to manage what is within their boundaries. They should be granted the responsibility to meet the key priorities of the Parliament and of Scotland, and they should always be held accountable for their performance in meeting those priorities. Maintaining an efficient board and supporting it with sufficient resources and jurisdiction are crucial to ensuring the continued vitality of our national parks.
Does the member agree that there should be two boards? He has spoken of only one board. Does he envisage there being two boards, one for each authority, or one board for both authorities?
When I speak about maintaining an efficient board, I mean a board for each park. We must have a responsible board structure, with a strong democratic element. Why should the boards not be wholly democratic, as Rob Gibson suggested?
The national parks have been an asset to Scotland and our vital tourism industry. Men, women and children, not just from Scotland but from around the world, have been able to appreciate our breathtaking views, the wonders of the natural environment and Scotland's vast resources. We have nurtured a deep appreciation of nature and should make no apologies for having done so. The national parks have been a key component of that gift to humanity. We should not hesitate to discard rash ideas that would not improve on the boards' current performance, but we should support measured changes that improve on the current structure.
I am happy to hold a responsible debate on the merits of measured change; we have had such a debate today. However, I will not accept a complete disregard for the merits of the parks as they stand. Let us have a sensible, reasoned debate on the future of the parks and resist any rash decisions that we may come to regret.
I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate. When the National Parks (Scotland) Bill was passed in 2000, I was working in the Parliament as a researcher. I am pleased to take part in a debate that reflects on the first five years of the parks.
One of the two national parks, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, is situated partly in the region that I represent. I welcome the minister's announcement today that the boundary of the park will be extended. The national parks have at their core four statutory aims, with which we are familiar: conservation, sustainability, understanding and the promotion of social and economic development.
It is crucial that the existing national parks and any future parks that we establish stay true to those four aims and remain linked and accountable to the local communities in which they are placed. An important part of the role that the national parks play is that they build community engagement and involvement, so that the unique and special environment in Scotland is conserved, sustained and, moreover, enjoyed and understood.
Scotland's landscape and wildlife are among our biggest assets. The beauty of our country brings millions of visitors from around the globe to our shores every year. The economic benefits of the £4 billion-plus tourism industry, which sustains more than 200,000 jobs in Scotland, make it integral to Scotland's prosperity, especially in many rural areas. National parks that are linked and accountable to their local areas, that conserve and sustain our environment and that promote and develop the use of it should be a key element of further building our tourism industry.
I recently attended a tourism conference in Fife at which the challenges of climate change for the tourism industry were highlighted as well as an increasing move towards sustainable tourism both in terms of how tourists travel and how the tourism industry delivers. The quality of our national parks puts us in a good position to meet those challenges. I acknowledge the minister's assurances that he will not be bound by Professor Kay's report. I do not believe that Neil Kay's recommendation to merge the national parks into SNH is the proper way forward, as that could risk losing the local connection that national parks should have.
I was happy to receive useful briefings from RSPB Scotland and Ramblers Scotland in advance of the debate. Although they point out the room for improvement, they support the national park model. A key issue for Ramblers Scotland and others is that of access rights to Scotland's environment. In my region, there have been recent problems with access to land on the Sauchieburn estate, on which Ramblers Scotland has been lobbying hard, with a protest organised for this coming weekend. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 was introduced as part of the measures on land rights in the early years of the Scottish Parliament, and the national parks have acquitted themselves well as access authorities. The Ramblers Scotland briefing states that our two national parks have
"demonstrated how public support for the protection of landscape, wildlife and the cultural heritage can go hand in hand with economic improvement and the wider aspects of sustainable development."
It seems clear that the national park structure is appreciated by those who enjoy Scotland's natural environment and that it is a valued model for securing the full potential of Scotland's environment.
National parks can ensure that the public have access to Scotland's countryside and can effectively manage that countryside in a sustainable way, both economically and environmentally. As part of the forthcoming review, I believe that consideration should now be given to extending the model of national parks to marine and coastal areas. I may be biased, but I believe that Fife contains some of the most beautiful beaches in the whole of Scotland. It is also home to diverse and fragile coastal wildlife. Extending the model of national parks to those areas and to other coastal areas in Scotland could help us to maximise the benefits of Scotland's coastline for tourism and quality of life and could help us to sustain them into the future. However, the minister has confirmed this afternoon that although the new Administration is not against a coastal marine national park in principle,
"simplification of the complex regulatory system for the marine environment"
is one of its "more pressing priorities". I quote from the Scottish Government's website.
A marine bill should be a high priority—it was in our manifesto and in the SNP's. However, it will take time to produce a marine bill, and it will take longer still to pass and implement such legislation. All the while, we are delaying the prospect of extending the benefits of the national park model to elsewhere in Scotland, including the marine and coastline environment. The truth is that it is not an either/or situation. A new national park can be created by ministerial order under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and need not wait for new legislation to come into force. I believe that, following the review of the national parks, the Scottish Government should seriously consider creating new national parks, including national parks in marine and coastal areas such as those in my region. There is no reason to wait for the proposed marine bill to which we are all looking forward.
Does the member accept that it is not up to ministers in Edinburgh to decide where new national parks should be created, and that it is up to communities to bring their own ideas for the future to the Government?
I fully accept that. Members have explored and recognised the importance of locating national parks where local people are keen to have them. My point is that I would like the Government to consider establishing a coastal and marine national park sooner than would be the case if we waited for the proposed marine bill to be passed.
We are lucky to have such a beautiful country. For a small country, Scotland has some of the most diverse landscapes and wildlife in the world. Our national parks should continue to form an element of how we secure the benefits of our natural resources for generations to come.
I welcome today's debate. Scotland's two national parks are one of the Parliament's most significant achievements. The legislation that created them could have been passed only under some form of home rule. The Westminster Parliament would never have found the time, let alone had the will, for such reform. Of course, perhaps an independent Parliament would have allowed us to go further and faster in the establishment of our national parks—I mention that as a mere aside.
As David Stewart said, the existence of the national park concept is a tribute to John Muir, a Scot from Dunbar who emigrated to the United States of America. His campaigns led to the protection first of the Yosemite valley and then of other great wildernesses in the US. It is a testament to the Scottish Parliament that the ideas of John Muir in establishing national parks have been enshrined in his country of birth.
We have two national parks in comparison with the 12—soon to be 13—parks across England and Wales and the many areas of outstanding natural beauty that have been designated south of the border and which are afforded the same protection. It is perhaps ironic that Scotland, which has some of the oldest, wildest and most impressive landscapes in Europe, has had to wait so long for a protection regime that matches European and global standards.
When we appreciate those landscapes, we cannot express our feelings more clearly than with the old maxim that we do no inherit the earth from our ancestors, but borrow it from our children. That is why protecting the land within our national parks is so important. Our landscapes and wildernesses have a value in their own right. Even if nobody ever visited them, our national parks would still be important as our country's lungs, filtering our water and purifying our air. That they act in that manner as well as being visited by so many people hammers home their importance to our country. It is right therefore that we should bestow on them a level of protection and management. Doing so will ensure that short-term gain does not mean long-term overexploitation.
As the motion before us correctly states, we should commend the contribution of national parks
"to the greener Scotland agenda."
However, the contribution of the parks is much wider than that. They make a valuable contribution to the Government's aims for a fairer and healthier Scotland.
Our national parks can make Scotland fairer, because land is protected for future generations and is understood as being held for the common good. That is in keeping with the traditional understanding of land use and ownership in Scotland. The elected element of the national park boards is a commendable example of participatory democracy. It is a way of ensuring that the voice of ordinary people is heard at the heart of decision making. I am glad that there seems to be such uniform agreement on the issue across the chamber.
Our national parks can also make Scotland healthier, because of the opportunities that they afford for recreation, especially walking, which is one of the cheapest, easiest and most effective forms of exercise. They also provide a wide range of outdoor pursuits from skiing and snowboarding on the Cairngorms to windsurfing on Loch Lomond, in which I am sure Jackie Baillie affords herself the opportunity to participate at every chance.
Absolutely.
I assure members that I do not engage in those activities very regularly. However, for those who do, national park status means that the potentials can be maximised at the same time as the activities' impact on the landscape and environment is carefully managed.
Our national parks contribute
"to the greener Scotland agenda."
because they act as exemplars of the changes that we need to introduce in wider society if we are to tackle the causes and mitigate the effects of climate change.
National park authorities should be ambitious in promoting the Government's green targets. They should make their parks as accessible as possible to public transport; they should demand the highest standards of energy efficiency in their buildings; and they should minimise and manage waste. In that context, I welcome the Government's commitment to a strategic review of the operation of and future for our national parks. I hope that some of the points that I have made will be considered in the review.
After five years of designation, the time is right to ensure that our national parks serve the purposes for which they were established. Discussions have taken place on the effectiveness of the national park boards. It is right that all aspects of their operation should be considered in the review, but the elected element of those structures is of the utmost importance. In that regard, I welcome the minister's confirmation that he shares those principles. Given the questions to the minister on the subject, some members appear to have missed that confirmation. As I said, I welcome it.
Five years after the establishment of the national parks, the time is also right to consider their size. I welcome Mike Russell's announcement that the Cairngorms national park will include highland Perthshire. The people of highland Perthshire should be congratulated, not only on voting for the SNP, which won with 60 per cent of the vote in a recent by-election, but on the campaign that they have run to be included in the Cairngorms national park. I also pay tribute to John Swinney for the campaign that he has run.
I welcome the fact that the Government review will consider other areas that may be included in the existing national parks. I hope that the review will also consider other areas throughout Scotland that may be endowed with national park status. For instance, the regional parks that were established long ago could be considered for promotion to full national park status. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider that possibility in summing up the debate.
Scotland's national parks are part of a European and worldwide family of designated and protected landscapes. The European Landscape Convention of 2000, which the United Kingdom finally ratified in 2006, reinforces the global dimension. That means that we have a duty not only to Scotland's future generations, but to people throughout the world who benefit from our national parks as tourists, consumers of produce and suppliers of the technology and tools that are used in the parks.
We have a duty to preserve and enhance the natural beauty and resources of our national parks and all Scotland's designated scenic areas. Scotland's national parks are a major achievement of devolution and a major responsibility of the Parliament. I hope that the debate takes us some way towards exercising that responsibility. We must realise that, through the careful and strategic management of our finest resources, we are building a legacy that will outlast us all.
We come now to the winding-up speeches. I have a little time in hand, so I can allow members a little flexibility. I call Mike Rumbles, whom I can offer up to eight minutes.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the review of our national parks. The debate has been a good one. I was pleased that the minister confirmed straight away that we are to complete the unfinished business on the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park.
However, I was disappointed by the minister's reaction to the Liberal Democrat amendment. In opening the debate, he accepted almost every element of the amendment, but then seemed to dance on the head of a pin in not wanting to accept the amendment itself. I could not follow his line of thinking. The only reason that the Government has given for not accepting the amendment is that it does not want to keep the national parks as public bodies—perhaps the cabinet secretary will address that in summing up.
That is not true.
The minister says that that is not true.
I deny categorically that that is true. I wish to keep, and we will keep, the national park authorities as public bodies. The sole reason why I cannot accept the amendment is that it would tie the hands of the review in an unacceptable way. Mr Hume knows that, because I have discussed it with him three times. The points are covered by the motion and the other amendments, so if Mr Hume withdraws his amendment, we can agree unanimously. If anyone is dancing on the head of a pin, it is Mr Rumbles rather than me who is doing so, which I must say is an equally unlikely prospect.
I rather hoped that the minister would explain why he thought that the amendment was not acceptable, but he has failed to do so.
It would tie the hands of the review.
The only reason that the minister is giving is that the amendment would tie the hands of the review.
It would.
I agree with you.
I must ask that the little conversations between the two of you discontinue now. Please address the chair.
I agree with the minister because he agrees with every element of our amendment. However, it is rather bizarre that although he agrees with every substantive point in the Liberal Democrat amendment, he argues that it would tie the hands of the review. There is no logic in the Government's argument and it is not persuasive at all. Any independent person listening to the debate would not be persuaded by the minister's argument. I hope that the real reason why the minister will not support the amendment is not the First Minister's political commitment to reduce the number of quangos.
John Scott focused on many things, but I want to follow through with him his assertion that 25 board members is an unwieldy number. I agree, but we should consider the history.
The National Parks (Scotland) Bill was the first bill to come before the Rural Affairs Committee back in 1999-2000, and the first bill that I examined as a member of that committee. In the bill as introduced, the Government wanted there to be 20 board members: 10 appointed by ministers and 10 appointed by local authorities. However, as the committee went through the bill, it became obvious to me and to other committee members that local people wanted local representation. The only way in which the amendments that sought to put five locally elected people on the board could be agreed to was if the Government and local authority nominees were not removed.
I am pleased that there is now recognition on all sides that the addition of local members has been the huge success that some of us always thought it would be. It is proof positive of the importance of the committee system in improving Government legislation. I agree that the park boards are unwieldy but the history explains why the Liberal Democrats make it clear in our amendment that we must retain at least five directly elected board members.
Would the member care to speculate on his ideal size of board?
I never like to speculate in that way. I am sure that that is what the review is all about. Our amendment aims to ensure that we do not undermine the directly elected element.
Jim Hume reminded us that, at first, the minister seemed reluctant to accept that we need two distinct park boards—I am still not sure whether he accepts that. Jamie McGrigor, Dave Thompson and many others supported the idea of two authorities, with local decision making. Alison McInnes highlighted the need for diverse boards.
The Liberal Democrats support the motion, and we have no problems with any of the amendments. We welcome the forthcoming review, and support the extension of the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park. I remember committee members' frustration when we approved the secondary legislation that set up the Cairngorms national park and were faced with a take-it-or-leave-it situation. There was no doubt that the majority of committee members wanted the park boundary in the south to follow SNH's recommendations. However, the Government of the day decided otherwise. This is unfinished business, which our Government and our Parliament need to address, and I am glad that we are going to address it.
The review is necessary, but our amendment makes it clear that we need to retain two distinct park boards in the two distinct parks. The amendment would tie the hands of the review because it rules out any attempt by SNH to roll up the park authorities—a policy that the minister agrees with—and calls for retention of at least five directly elected board members. I cannot understand the Government's position. It supports all the proposals in our amendment, yet it cannot bring itself to support that amendment. I ask all members—and even, at this late stage, the Government—to be a bit more magnanimous and to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment.
I warmly welcome the minister's announcement on altering the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park. I have pursued that issue since the park was first established without the inclusion of any part of Perthshire. As members will know, in the previous session, John Swinney introduced a member's bill on the issue, which I was pleased to support. In his absence, it is appropriate to pay tribute to him for his campaigning on the issue.
As we all know, when the boundaries of the national park were drawn up, they included parts of Inverness-shire, Moray, Aberdeenshire and a small part of Angus, but no part of Perth and Kinross. That was despite the fact that all objective views expressed on the matter said that the northern part of highland Perthshire should have been included in the park. Even the then Government's advisers on the matter, Scottish Natural Heritage, said that the boundaries should include part of highland Perthshire. Only the then Scottish Executive took a different view, but it failed to marshal any objective evidence to support its stance.
The only conclusion that could have been reached at the time was that the decision to exclude Perth and Kinross was taken for political reasons, as it suited the then Executive to have a majority of the elected members of the Cairngorms National Park Authority board from Highland Council. There was, and is, a great deal of public support for amending the national park boundaries from all sorts of bodies in Perthshire and further afield, including the Pitlochry partnership, the John Muir Trust, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, the Blair Atholl area tourism association and many others. Perth and Kinross Council and other groups led a vigorous local campaign. I pay tribute to that campaign, which has now paid off.
Today's announcement will right a wrong, and it is good news for the highland Perthshire economy. There is no doubt that, as far as visitors are concerned, Blair Atholl is the natural southern gateway to the Cairngorms. Following today's announcement, Blair Atholl will come within the national park and will be able to develop as a proper gateway centre. Slightly further east, Spittal of Glenshee, which is on the A93, will now fall within the national park and should gain an economic benefit. That is good news, and I commend the minister, to whom I am warming by the week—much to his concern, I am sure.
I will address some of the wider issues in the debate about the future of the national parks. Our party's position was set out in some detail earlier by my colleague John Scott. David Stewart quoted from Professor Neil Kay's report. Professor Kay described park management as a
"clunky, cumbersome, formal and bureaucratic muddle".
Parliamentarians are right to be concerned when a respected academic produces such a report and uses such language.
We are right to be concerned about the costs of running national park boards. The duty on ministers, who are responsible for the purse strings, and on parliamentarians, who are responsible for holding ministers to account, is always to ensure that public money is properly spent.
As John Scott said, it is right to ask whether a board of 25 is the right size. We do not presuppose the answer to that question, but it is right to ask whether 25 is too many. I understand that individual payments for the national park board members are lower than they are for the board members of many other bodies, such as SEPA and SNH, but the national park boards have more board members, so the cumulative cost is higher. Against a backdrop of decluttering the public sector landscape—an ambition that we share with the Government—and scrutinising costs across the public sector, it is right that we ask such questions.
We are quite right to have a review, but I have two caveats. First, the Parliament wants to pay tribute to the people who have served on the boards of the two national parks until now. Whatever decision we take about going forward from here, we accept that, in the early days, when the national parks were being established, the board members did a lot of excellent work. A decision to restructure the boards or cut the number of members should not be taken as a criticism of the excellent work that has been done.
I draw attention to the fact that Professor Kay makes exactly that point. However, he also says that although a board of 25 might well have been appropriate at the establishment of the national parks, when the priority was to set targets and to determine how things would happen, it might not be appropriate in future. That is an important distinction.
I am grateful to the minister for clarifying that point.
Secondly, I reassure Jackie Baillie that our position has not changed and that we agree that there should be local democratic input, which should continue in relation to the boards. The minister accepted that point.
If I remember rightly, Rob Gibson made an interesting proposal, which is worth examining, that the boards should be entirely locally elected. At this time, when we are trying to promote public engagement and direct democracy, we should consider that option. Again, I do not presuppose the outcome of the review—indeed, the proposal shows why we need a wide-ranging review.
I am afraid that we will not support Mr Rumbles's amendment. Like the minister, we feel that it is simply too prescriptive. I apologise to Mr Hume—the Liberal Democrat amendment is not in the name of Mr Rumbles.
We have become very much engaged with governance and management in the debate; perhaps we have lost sight of some of the broader issues that are at stake. National parks are a tremendous resource for Scotland. They hold precious landscapes of international renown. People come from all over the world to visit Scotland to see our mountains, fish on our lochs and walk on our hills. They come to our national parks, which are a tremendous part of our countryside and make a tremendous economic contribution to our tourism industry.
I question, as I have in the past, the good sense of building giant pylons through the Cairngorms national park, which will happen if approval is given for the Beauly to Denny power line upgrade. It is hard to imagine any other country with a national park talking about desecrating the landscape in such a way. I hope that ministers will consider that point seriously when they come to decide whether to grant consent for the upgrade. I do not dispute that we must have connectivity to the grid; I just wonder whether there are better ways of achieving that than building giant pylons, which is what is being proposed.
Mr Fraser makes an interesting point. What would be his solution, if we are not to have that power line?
If Mr Whitton had followed closely what I have said in the past, he would know that I have talked about options such having as a subsea cable, which would run around the coast, and making greater use of the eastern Scotland route, where we already have much larger pylons. The point is that we are dealing with very sensitive landscapes in the Highlands and the national parks. I question whether such landscapes can take the size of pylons that might be appropriate elsewhere in Scotland.
As I said, I welcome the announcement on the boundary change. There will be celebrations tonight in highland Perthshire, where, as Jamie Hepburn reminded us, there was a recent by-election. He is right to say that the SNP won that by-election, but the Tory vote went up by 4 per cent—there is a double cause for celebration this evening.
I call Sarah Boyack. Ms Boyack, you have quite a long time.
Thank you. Why does that always happen when I do not have a gigantic speech to deliver?
The debate has been good and timely. The quinquennial review is the opportunity for the Government to examine how the national parks have been operating. I welcome our opportunity as parliamentarians to give our views to the minister as he commissions that review. Our amendment is written in a spirit of encouragement to the minister to examine how the parks have operated. We want him to consider not just the structures—important though they are—but the effectiveness of the parks' operation and the extent to which communities have been involved in them.
The ministers can take some key messages from the debate. The first is that our two national parks have been successful—that message has come from all parties. The second point is that although there are areas of consensus about where we want to go in the future, particularly on retaining local involvement, it is only fair to acknowledge that there are issues to consider around how the parks operate.
There is a need for some history in this debate. Colleagues have said that I was initially the responsible minister. The park boards now are not the size that we intended when we started the process. We have gone from enthusiasm in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area, where people had been desperate for a national park for years, to a huge amount of scepticism and doubt in the Cairngorms area about whether a national park was appropriate for the area. The bottom-up process to which Alison McInnes referred was crucial. People needed to be part of that process. That is why we did not just have an enabling act to set up the national parks—we had the act first, then the orders, so that we could consider the different characteristics of both areas.
It is testament to the work of colleagues in the chamber and, crucially, to the work of people on the boards, local representatives, businesses and communities that have been involved in the process, that eight years on we are having a debate in which there is universal agreement that it was right to set up the two national parks. The comments that Rhoda Grant made about the transformation of attitudes in the business community are testament to that inclusive approach.
The two parks have different histories and have ended up with different powers. The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park has full planning powers and the Cairngorms national park has the opportunity to call in planning applications, although they both have park plans. They have both been successful in delivering the model that was wanted locally.
I laud national parks as being one of devolution's successes. Jamie Hepburn is not in the chamber now, but he commented earlier that we could not have had the national parks legislation before devolution, partly because the House of Lords would not have enabled us to have national parks on its land, and partly because there would not have been the time. That is absolutely right—we spent a lot of time discussing national parks.
That does not mean, however, that we all agree on everything. Colleagues have talked about the need to ensure that planning remains local. We have a robust process: national park plans are drawn up by the park authorities, the process enables consultation and changes to be made to the plans, and then the decisions are made. We will never have agreement on individual planning decisions—it is just not in our nature, and it is impossible to achieve. I congratulate Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority on winning one of the prestigious Scottish planning quality awards today, which is a testament to the fact that very good work is going on in our parks.
I welcome the minister's confirmation that he does not intend to centralise the national parks—I will not invite him to stand up and say that again for members' pleasure, even though I have a lot of minutes to use up today. It would, however, be a huge mistake to lose accountability and local focus just for the benefit of cutting a couple of quangos and changing the numbers. Members keep asking the minister about that because we have read the report in its entirety and are unhappy not just with the recommendation, but with the content of the report.
There is a history to the creation of the national park boards. We wanted to ensure that we had national appointees to reflect the national status of the parks. The national parks are hugely significant: Mike Russell read out the criteria, which include that they be of outstanding national importance—on that basis not every area in Scotland can qualify. We need to have national stewardship, but we also wanted local involvement, and local appointees who would be part of that process.
Mike Rumbles and I had many conversations about that—which I did not seek—but the process gave us better national parks. That is why I caution the minister against expecting that it will be simple to reduce the size of the national park boards. There were particular issues in establishing the boards with regard to bringing people in, but the challenge now is to retain local support. If the size of the park boards is automatically reduced, that support will potentially be put at risk.
Did you give consideration at the time you drew up the national park plans—
I did not give much consideration to that, Mr Scott. You might want to address Sarah Boyack. I refer to your use of the word "you".
I was about to address an issue that I know to be dear to your heart. Did you consider the possibility of creating a national forest park in south-west Scotland, based around the Glentrool area? Do you think, given your experience, that that might be a suitable area for consideration in the future?
It was the use of the word "you" in relation to another member that I objected to, Mr Scott.
It was clear at the start that there were two areas in which there was a broad consensus in terms of national priority and the national criteria that Mike Russell set out. The decision was taken that we would first make those two parks successful, and then focus on the location of more national parks. I will move on to that in my closing remarks—there are issues in respect of where the next national parks might be situated.
The national park boards are not the same as other quangos, in that they have a very intimate relationship with local people. The four aims of the national parks are unique to Scotland and were developed because we wanted local people not just to benefit from the parks, but to feel that they were part of the process. That has been crucial to the parks' success. There was also an issue with regard to involving local councils. When local councils, locally elected people and national representatives are involved, it is difficult to get the number of people down to eight.
There is an important issue about balancing expertise and interest, and if we are to meet the four key principles that were set out in the 2000 act we need, as I said, more than just a structural review. We took a radical approach by having a slightly different set of aims and purposes and we departed from the traditional Sandford principle. We need to reflect on the extent to which that has been successful—drawing on the experience of both national parks would be a good part of the quinquennial review. I hope that the review is not just about structures. We should learn lessons about—
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take an intervention from Robin Harper, who has not been in the debate.
I thank Sarah Boyack. She will recall that, during consideration of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, I failed in an attempt to incorporate the Sandford principle into the text of the bill. She will also recall that I was given an absolute assurance that the Sandford principle was embodied in the meaning of the entire bill. Does she agree that it would be useful for the cabinet secretary to clarify in his summing up the Scottish National Party's position on the Sandford principle?
That would be helpful, and I am more than happy to agree with Robin Harper's suggestion that the cabinet secretary should outline the new Government's position on the Sandford principle. The legislation was about implementing the four aims in a co-ordinated and collective way. That is why it would be useful to reflect on the success of the national parks. We did something radical and innovative—it would be good to examine how that has worked in practice.
Almost every member has commented on the Kay report, and I strongly agree with Jamie McGrigor that we should treat it with some caution. However, it was revealed from reading the report that we should be grateful to Professor Kay for persuading ministers to dump the idea of merging SNH and SEPA. I would therefore not want to dismiss the entire report out of hand or suggest that it is not worth reading.
I can sense from the content of colleagues' speeches that we have all read the briefings that have been sent to us by the national park authorities. If there is a core agreement among members, it is that people are interested in the range of challenges that the national parks address. Nigel Don was right to consider the positive achievements of the parks and to warn ministers to be careful not to unpick their work. Those who are responsible for managing our national parks should take some pride in the consensus in Parliament on their achievements. Getting us all to agree on something is no mean achievement.
When we consider the range of issues, it makes us think about the challenges that are faced by the boards: publicity; the imaginative and effective work that colleagues have talked about; economic development; the massive opportunities for tourism; the new facilities that have been built; the new housing that has been worked through with the rural housing associations; and, crucially, the investment in nature conservation and environmental protection. A huge amount of innovative work is being carried out. I note the work with young people in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park and the community and culture work in the Cairngorms.
One minute.
Are you telling me that I have one minute to go, Presiding Officer?
You may certainly have another minute if you would like one.
Fantastic. Thank you.
It has been a timely debate, and there has been a clear message to ministers that our national parks have been successful. The last point to focus on is the question of new national parks. Richard Lochhead asked Claire Baker the tantalising question of whether we would agree a new national park if it was promoted by a community organisation. A little more thinking through and clarification is needed—perhaps not in the cabinet secretary's closing speech, but in the future.
National parks have a national priority and receive national funding. As Mike Russell correctly pointed out, they must be of outstanding national importance. I would like a marine and coastal national park to be established and some good arguments have been made by NGOs for other land-based national parks—Mike Russell mentioned north Harris. There will be competing opportunities in the future, and one subject for a debate is how that process works in practice so that we do not have every regional park in Scotland saying, "We want to be a national park, and we'll get to be one tomorrow."
In the spirit of a little constructive criticism, I suggest that more work should be done on that and that members and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee should be involved. There needs to be more thought on that issue, because the next stage in the national parks process is to ask about new national parks. What will the criteria be? Will they all be land based? I hope that we can consider a coastal marine park with some enthusiasm and involve all members in that debate. That will mean that we have a constructive discussion in which we may not necessarily all agree but in which we all at least know the ground rules and principles.
It is fantastic that at the beginning of the third session of the Scottish Parliament we are looking at how we build on the success of the first two national parks. That is a good message for the future.
That was a sterling effort, Ms Boyack, almost worthy of national park status itself.
I agree with Sarah Boyack that the debate has been good. I might take issue with Nigel Don, who I think confused the High Street of Braemar with the Highland wildlife park at Kincraig, but I know where he was coming from.
Out of self-interest, I will refer to upper Speyside. Residents of that area, which is in my constituency of Moray, might not feel lucky this week, after the United Kingdom Government's smash and grab on the local whisky sector, but my constituents there feel lucky to live in the midst of the spectacular landscape of Cairngorms national park. Last year, I went along to speak to the children of Glenlivet primary school. When I arrived at the school, which is adjacent to the cairn that marks the gateway to Cairngorms national park, I thought how lucky they are to go to school in such a spectacular location, surrounded by a rich cultural and natural heritage.
As Rhoda Grant was, I was proud to be involved in the first debates on national parks back in 2000. Many members will feel their age today—that was eight years ago, and it is now five years since the parks got up and running. The creation of the national parks had cross-party support back then and we are delighted that such cross-party support for the review has been expressed today.
In the previous parliamentary session, I was a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which considered in 2007 John Swinney's member's bill to extend Cairngorms national park's southern boundary. Having heard the powerful case that was presented by John Swinney and—most of all—by communities, whose views the committee heard at first hand when it visited Blair Atholl, I know that the communities concerned will warmly welcome the Government's announcement that the park's southern boundary will be extended to include highland and eastern Perthshire. I say to John Swinney, "Your Government was listening to you." I pay tribute to all the campaigners and to Murdo Fraser, who mentioned his role in the campaign, although I was concerned that it has taken him several years to begin to warm to Michael Russell. Many of us warmed to him many years ago.
As many members have said, Scotland's national parks use a distinctive model with four aims that combine conservation of natural and cultural heritage with the sustainable use, enjoyment and development of an area's communities. National parks seek to conserve and enhance the qualities that make such places special, and offer significant benefits to the people of the whole of Scotland. Our national parks are helping to develop solutions for rural Scotland that improve people's lives.
The people, places and special qualities of the national parks are strongly connected and interdependent. The landscapes, habitats and species that give the areas their special character are actively shaped by land management and the communities that live there. Both national parks have successfully developed with their partners the first Scottish national park plans, which will ensure that the public sector organisations that are involved in managing the areas are joined up and working towards a shared vision. To see the number of organisations that are involved, we have simply to look at the number of logos on the first page of the "Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007". It is great that all those organisations are working together.
As Jamie Hepburn said and Sarah Boyack reiterated, John Muir—that great Scot—is looking down on us from above and will be proud of the Scottish Parliament's actions. As Jamie Hepburn and Sarah Boyack also said, if there were no Scottish Parliament, there would be no national parks in Scotland.
Our national parks are important not only because of their iconic landscapes and outstanding environments, but because of their cultural heritage and qualities. Those reasons combine to give the national parks their distinctive identities. Scotland's national parks are not only places that are visited by millions of people each year: they are also living and working landscapes.
Many members talked about the potential for more tourism and John Scott talked about the greater potential for eco-tourism. The national parks are huge assets that have helped to put Scotland on the international stage. Our parks put the best of Scotland on show and contribute to increasing tourism revenue through sustainable means, while helping to look after nationally and internationally important species and habitats.
Cairngorms national park was the first national park in the UK to be accredited with the European charter for sustainable tourism and 50 businesses in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park have achieved green tourism business scheme accreditation. As many members highlighted, many innovative approaches to rural development are being taken in our national parks, which provide the opportunity to develop and test out innovative solutions to rural issues.
As Jamie McGrigor highlighted, in Cairngorms national park, for example, the land-based business training project, which has had wide acclaim, helps organise and fund many training courses for land-based businesses. In four years, more than 2,000 people from more than 200 businesses have been trained in a wide range of skills.
As many members highlighted, excellent examples of bottom-up rural development exist in our national parks. Parliament acknowledges that the parks are playing that crucial role. In Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, the successful communities future programme has led to more than 18 communities forming their own community development trusts, through which local issues are being tackled to bring improvements to the people who live in those communities. A book has been published that sets out a step-by-step guide, so that communities throughout Scotland can learn from the excellent bottom-up approach that has been adopted in both national parks.
Rob Gibson and a number of other members highlighted the point that rural housing is central to rural development in our national parks. It is important that we encourage our national parks to seek out innovative solutions to address the affordable housing crisis in rural Scotland, rather than criticise them for doing so. That is vital—their efforts run parallel to many of the initiatives that the Scottish Government is progressing to address the rural housing crisis.
Michael Russell said in his opening speech—his remarks have been echoed by many members from all parties—that the enhancement and protection of local democracy is a paramount consideration of the forthcoming review. That will be the review's top priority. We all recognise that we have to protect local democracy and that, as Sarah Boyack highlighted, there has to be local buy-in for the work that is undertaken by national parks.
Scotland's national parks are parks for all. They allow people from all over Scotland and further afield, and from all walks of life, to enjoy, learn and benefit from special areas. Over five years, 4,200 people have gained a John Muir award while getting active and learning more about the nature and wildness of the Cairngorms national park.
Since their establishment in 2002 and 2003, both national parks have achieved a great deal, but there is more to be achieved. Even today, as Sarah Boyack said, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority won an award in the Scottish awards for quality planning for its work with the developer of the Carrick golf resort. That is another sign of excellence and I know that the whole Parliament will want to congratulate the authority on winning that award this morning.
The national park authorities have worked very hard since their establishment. They have led and enabled the action and partnerships that have been necessary to achieve the four statutory aims of the national parks. The authorities' role has been to facilitate and co-ordinate management of the national parks. However, as we all know, things do not stand still and reviewing after a reasonable time how things are working and identifying where improvements can be made is the natural course to take. We welcome the unanimous support for having the review now. As the Minister for Environment explained, now is the time to carry out the review of Scotland's national park authorities. Many of the specific issues that have been raised today will be taken into account by the review.
I can only reiterate what Michael Russell said about the Lib Dem amendment: we cannot today pre-empt the review before it has even begun. It is illogical for many members of certain parties to say in Parliament today that they welcome the review, but then to give lots of reasons why there should not be change. That is why we will not support the Lib Dem amendment.
I will highlight how, as many members have said, the national parks are contributing to Parliament's and the Government's green objectives in respect of microrenewables, sustainable housing and local food produce. Many innovative measures are being adopted by our national parks to help Scotland achieve our greener Scotland objective and to ensure that we live in a greener nation. Of course, the national parks are ideally placed to play that role, particularly in relation to protecting biodiversity and our magnificent landscape. However, we must not forget the people who live there. This issue is about landscapes and the environment, but it is also about living, working communities. That must be at the heart of our future strategy for our national parks in Scotland.
In conclusion, we all agree that Scotland's national parks have been a big success, but we all agree that there is now a case for a review. We cannot be complacent: we have to look to the future, which is what the review is all about. I urge Parliament to support the Government's motion.