Argyll Forest Park
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-650, in the name of George Lyon, on national park status for Argyll forest park. The debate will be concluded, without any question being put, after 30 minutes.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament supports the inclusion of Argyll Forest Park within the boundaries of the first new National Park in Scotland (Loch Lomond and Trossachs); notes the real benefits that will flow to the Cowal economy from increased tourism and leisure and, most importantly, recognises the huge impact the National Park would have in rebranding the Cowal peninsula for the 21st century.
I first say a big thank you to Tom McCabe for moving the motion that allowed us to bring the previous debate to a speedy conclusion and to bring members' business forward.
I should stress how important the issue that we are debating is for those of my constituents living in the Cowal peninsula. The inclusion of Argyll forest park in the first national park in Scotland would do a lot to bring prosperity there.
Historically, as many members know, Dunoon and the Cowal peninsula were thriving tourist areas. Thousands travelled doon the watter during the Glasgow fair, Greenock fair and Paisley fortnight to bring prosperity and an economic boom to the town of Dunoon. Unfortunately, those heydays are long since past, and there has been a significant decline in tourism since the peak years of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
Cowal has undergone a massive restructuring since those times, not only in terms of the tourism industry, but especially when the American base closed in the early 1990s. Another recent blow to the local economy was when Forest Enterprise decided to end its involvement at the Kilmun depot, with the loss of up to 12 jobs.
In advice published for ministers in February 1999, Scottish Natural Heritage designated the Argyll forest park area as having the potential for secondary consideration for inclusion in the new Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.
I argue that there is a strong case for including Argyll forest park in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, the first national park for Scotland. The first argument is the environmental case. The area's heritage value is already widely acknowledged; indeed, Argyll forest park was one of the first forest parks. The area is already managed for visitors and nature conservation and could easily be integrated into a national park.
The area has the potential to accommodate more visitors and more tourism. If realised, that would allow Argyll forest park to take pressure off other areas, such as Loch Lomond, by opening up Dunoon and allowing it to be the new gateway to the south-west end of the new national park.
There is also a strong economic case, which surpasses the environmental case. Much-needed investment would be brought to the area. Forest Enterprise estimates that the investment that would flow from the inclusion of Argyll forest park in the national park could be up to £2 million. That would be a significant economic boost to the area. It would secure jobs and create new jobs; it would reverse the cutbacks that have been caused by Forest Enterprise pulling out of the area. It would also encourage a dramatic increase in tourism, which we would all support.
Most important, the inclusion of Cowal in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park would rebrand the Cowal peninsula as a gateway to the south-west end of the park. It would remove for ever the old image of the cheap and cheerful, doon the watter destination that characterises the Dunoon area. It would go a long way towards selling the area. The area would benefit from inclusion in the national park not only because of the investment that would flow from that, but because it would present the area to the Scottish and UK populations as an important destination for environmental tourism.
The campaign to include Argyll forest park in the first Scottish national park is supported by all bodies and, I hope, all parties in this chamber. I ask the minister to support the campaign to ensure that it comes to a successful conclusion.
I, too, echo the welcome for Mr McCabe's motion. The prospect of listening to the debate until 7.30 pm would have been too much for any of us, however eloquent the speakers.
The SNP supports the motion. That will come as no surprise. The motion is a staging post in a campaign that has included parliamentary questions to the First Minister and, towards the beginning of the session, a motion about the need to regenerate the Cowal economy.
I will focus on one or two specific points on which I would welcome the minister's reassurance. At the launch of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, the Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, said that she was keen to learn from past experience and from successes and failures around the world. I would like two commitments on the boundary—their theme is mistakes to avoid.
The first commitment concerns the suggestion that the boundary should be porous. It has been suggested that some of the functions of the national park should be expanded into the Cowal area, but that the full status and benefits should not be. Some people have promoted that idea, but it should not be pursued. I hope that the minister can give me a commitment on that.
Secondly, I draw the minister's attention to what happened in the lake district, where the national park's original boundaries were far too tight—people have been arguing for nearly 50 years to change them. At the beginning of the designation stage, the wrong decision was made and an over-restrictive policy was imposed. The motion gives us the opportunity to establish at the outset the right boundaries to encourage development.
As Mr Lyon said, there is an environmental aspect to the establishment of national parks, which no one would deny—the bill is clear on that point. The prospect of national parks in Scotland can only benefit the environment.
However, it is important that the bill should strike a balance and take account of the economic impact of national parks. Unemployment is exceptionally low in the lake district, where 58 per cent of the population are employed in industries related to tourism and the national park. That shows the massive economic spin-off that national park status can give to an area; it is the sort of example that we should push for in Cowal. A national park can address both environmental protection and economic development; we have an opportunity to drive forward that approach in Cowal.
It is important to consider the wider context of this debate. We have had several debates on the area, but questions remain. What form will the new transportation links take? We are still waiting for the report on ferry services on the Clyde to be published; we should consider the proposed option of fast ferries.
We would like some joined-up thinking on the need to regenerate the Cowal peninsula. There is momentum in the community on all sides—from Forest Enterprise, Argyll and Bute Council and all political parties—to ensure that regeneration takes place. The Executive must listen to the people of Cowal, who want to be included in the national park boundaries. If the minister gives us a commitment on that point, he will give the area an enormous boost and the chamber would thank him for doing so from the bottom of its heart.
I look forward to the debate on national parks, but Scottish Conservatives would like more information on the effects of a national park on those living in the area and on their livelihoods and pursuits. We need to know about the schemes that are likely to be implemented and from where the funding will come before we commit ourselves to the idea.
If the new Loch Lomond national park goes ahead, it is vital that it includes the Argyll forest park, which is undoubtedly the jewel in the crown of the area. Just the other morning, on a glorious, dead still spring day, I drove up the west side of Loch Eck. What I saw made me stop the car, leap out and reach for the camera. The steep mountains on the far side were reflected so perfectly in the mirror-calm water of this deep, narrow loch that it was impossible to tell the difference between the reality and the reflection. People can keep their Great Lakes and their Grand Canyon—as far as I am concerned, there is nowhere like Argyll.
Argyll forest park was the first forest park in Great Britain; it was established in 1935 by Sir John Stirling-Maxwell.
Loch Eck and Loch Lomond have the same ecosystem, which is unique in Britain. They are like peas in a pod—one bigger, one smaller—except, in my opinion, Loch Eck is the greater beauty. To leave that area out of the national park would lessen the impact of the combined area and would diminish the park as a whole.
Argyll forest park and Queen Elizabeth forest park are owned by the state and are under the same management. It would be tragedy if the southern end of that coherent entity were to be sold off because it did not have park protection. The area will, I hope, benefit from £1 million of extra investment—what a boost that will give south Argyll, which is reeling from the effects of agricultural recession and dwindling tourism, mainly due to high fuel prices. New investment would be a shot in the arm for local industry.
Some months ago, I spoke in the debate secured by Duncan Hamilton on Dunoon and the Cowal peninsula. The Argyll forest park would be accessed at the southern end, through Dunoon. As I have said before, Dunoon should be seen as one of the main gateways to the Highlands, reached by an efficient ferry service from Gourock. Imagine the value to Dunoon of so many extra visitors. Such a step would also relieve the traffic pressures on the A82 at Balloch and Loch Lomondside, and make a new, magical journey for the traveller who wants to smell the tangle of the isles.
We are talking about opening up a golden opportunity for this beautiful area of Scotland to become firmly established for centuries as one of Scotland's wonders. It would surely be blinkered thinking to allow that opportunity to slide because of short-sighted cost implications. We have a genuine chance to change the course of the region's history, to reverse decline, to combine environmental protection with economic growth and to bring an area that has become a backwater back into the main stream.
I congratulate George Lyon on introducing this debate, which is about how the boundaries of national parks, if we are to have them in Scotland, are to be determined. That question has vexed the minds of many people—in most cases the proponents of national parks—for many decades. The topic will always be controversial and difficult. It cannot be otherwise, because so many parts of Scotland are of outstanding beauty and great conservation value.
I feel that the approach that was suggested by my friend Duncan Hamilton is correct. We want to be inclusive and draw the boundaries on a wide focus, rather than on a narrow one. The boundary should not be Ben Lomond—it should include the communities that live in, work in and know the area. If the people of the Cowal peninsula wish to be included in a national park, that wish must be taken seriously.
I am concerned about the structure and several aspects of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. Without going into the detail—today is not the appropriate time to do so—I would say that the most serious message that I wish to convey to the minister is that, for national parks to succeed, they must have the support of the people who live within their boundaries.
My concern is that the bill, as drafted, does not anticipate the difficulties that I believe are foreseeable, especially the need to promote the interests of the economy and of the social communities of the people within the park. Section 8(5) contains the Sandford principle, which prefers the conservation interests over the social and economic ones. How do we define conflict? Is it when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds puts in an objection to a proposal? If so, in Cairngorm, which is to be the second designated national park, we would not have had a funicular railway. That would have disgruntled the 95 per cent of the local people who supported it in a local referendum in the Strathspey & Badenoch Herald.
Much more work must be done if local support is not to be jeopardised. If the social and economic needs of the local people are promoted and recognised, I think that there will be support for national parks both within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and Cowal, if it be so renamed, and within Cairngorm. The jury is still out.
As a member who has made a submission in the consultation process, I know that there is concern in my constituency that the consultation may not take seriously the criticisms that have been made. For local support to exist, the membership of the national park authority must be different from what is proposed. There are grave concerns about the fact that, under schedule 1 to the bill, the Government has the power to nominate or to veto nominations. The authority should be locally controlled and nationally advised. The bill provides for no role for community councils, although the consultation paper seems to. That has caused great concern among community councils in my constituency and I would be surprised if that were not also the case in Argyll and Stirling.
I must inject one note of conflict into the debate. I cannot agree with Jamie McGrigor that Argyll is the most beautiful place in Scotland. Without doubt my constituency far exceeds Argyll, estimable though its qualities are. As Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber has the highest mountain, the deepest loch and the friendliest people, that cannot be a controversial proposition.
I congratulate George Lyon on securing the debate. I have just one or two comments to make.
The Cowal peninsula's need for investment is a long-standing problem; the area's inclusion within the national park boundary would bring that investment.
Fergus Ewing spoke about the consultation process. There has been almost universal agreement that Cairngorm and Loch Lomond be considered as national parks, but the local people at Cowal have not been consulted properly; we must start that process now to be in time for the secondary legislation.
Bringing the Cowal peninsula within the national park boundary would certainly put the focus on transport links, such as new ferries. If those ferries were to be used to bring people into the park, it would be up to the park board to develop them with local authorities.
I do not want to interfere in the argument between Fergus Ewing and Jamie McGrigor about which is the nicer place—Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber or Argyll and Bute—because I might lose out.
I just want to point out to Fergus that Loch Mhor is the deepest loch.
Loch Mhor is in my constituency.
Is it? Oh. I beg your pardon.
I am not sure whether Loch Mhor has its own monster; we will wait and see.
Many members would argue for their area, but all the Highlands and Islands are extremely beautiful.
I welcome the debate, which was instigated by George Lyon, and I am generally pleased to note the evident support for national parks.
My friend George Lyon suggested that—given that he would have missed his tea and would be late for his supper—I sum up by simply getting to my feet and saying, "Presiding Officer, yes."
I will accept what the minister just said. [Laughter.]
No; I will respond to the points that have been raised.
The Executive is committed to setting up Scotland's first national park in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs by summer 2000. To that end, we introduced the enabling bill to Parliament the day before yesterday. The bill will provide a framework for all national parks, and each national park will be set up by means of a designation order. The bill was amended in light of the comments that were received during the consultation process that ended on 3 March. We received more than 330 responses, the great majority of which were in favour, in principle, of national parks. We have made all those responses available to anyone who wants to see them; copies have been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre and the Scottish Executive library. We are grateful to all those who responded and who made a real contribution to the bill.
Today's debate has been about whether Argyll forest will be part of the first national park. The creation of individual national parks will come through individual designation orders, as I said. Those designation orders will specify boundaries, some powers for national parks and the membership and make-up of each national park authority. All those issues will be fully consulted on with all those who have an interest. That process is set out in some detail in the bill. I hope that that reassures my friends on the SNP benches.
The bill provides for certain criteria to be met in setting up a national park. 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 natural resources of the area should have a distinctive character and a coherent identity. Thirdly, designation of the area as a national park should meet the special needs of the area and be the best means of ensuring that the aims of the park are met in a collective way. Lastly, there should be a full and open consultative process, involving local communities, before any designation order is produced.
I do not want to pre-empt decisions, as they will depend on views that are expressed during consultation before the designation order is made. The important point is that no decisions have yet been made. There is an open and consultative process, which must be followed and which will involve those affected. Parliament will have the final say.
A number of members raised the point that the Cowal area would benefit from national park status. I agree that there is great potential for any area that is designated as a national park. Last month, we launched our new strategy for Scottish tourism, to lead our tourism industry into a new phase of modernisation and expansion. Our strategy is informed by the most wide-ranging tourism consultation exercise that has ever been undertaken in Scotland.
It is unsurprising that many respondents mentioned the importance of the environment and sustainability. Our unspoilt natural environment is one of our key strengths; visitors mention that strength time and again as a reason for visiting Scotland and, of course, for returning.
I have had time to reflect on what the minister has just said about consultation. If consultation with the people of Cowal proceeds and the people are substantially in favour of moving the boundary to include the area, can the minister imagine a situation in which that area would not be incorporated within the boundary?
I can reassure Duncan Hamilton that consultation will be extensive. As I have said, no decisions have yet been taken and Parliament will have the final say.
It is crucial that, in developing the tourism industry further, we do nothing to harm the natural environment, which is our No 1 tourism resource. I do not want to intervene in the battle between Jamie McGrigor and Fergus Ewing about which are the second and third best constituencies but, as every discerning tourist knows, all roads and ferries lead to the western isles.
Throughout Scotland, a wide range of initiatives are under way and will continue. They are improving the environment and enhancing appreciation of our countryside and towns. The national park initiative for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area has the potential to increase tourism and spend in the area, while protecting the natural environment.
The intention of the national parks plan is to provide for a balanced approach to the four aims and to integrate rural development, while ensuring proper protection of the natural and cultural heritage. A strong national park plan will be crucial in bringing about an integrated approach that involves all relevant players.
As George Lyon has intimated, Cowal is an important gateway for the development of the local tourism industries. Steps are already being taken to ensure that Cowal benefits from those tourism opportunities. Argyll and the Islands Enterprise is working on a number of local measures to enhance the area's potential. Those include the planned appointment of a town centre manager in Dunoon and various projects delivered through Cowal Enterprise Trust for environmental enhancement.
Argyll forest park and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park are exciting developments for the area and offer potential for the balanced development of new merchandising and tourism opportunities, such as the development of eco-tourism package holidays and new retail outlets.
Additional tourism potential for the Cowal economy is an extremely welcome development. However, it is important to acknowledge that the local economy has made considerable strides in the past few years in the wake of the departure of the United States Navy from the Holy loch in the early 1990s.
Tourism is not the only industry; there are many industries in the designated area, all of which will contribute to its success. Local communities and businesses have an important role in integrating the objectives of social and economic development with the objectives of the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the natural and cultural environment.
Since the departure of the Americans, the economy of Cowal has greatly diversified and modernised. New opportunities are being seized in areas such as call centres, database management and research and development. Dunoon is making remarkable strides in the whole field of information and communications technology and we are now witnessing the successful expansion of key players in IT, which have chosen Cowal as their base. Those private sector investors have recognised what the peninsula has to offer in terms of a loyal and skilled work force and an enviable quality of life.
Scotland's rural communities are among those that have the most to gain from the effective roll-out of information and communications technology, the proper training of potential beneficiaries and, above all, the encouragement of a culture that grasps what technology can offer as it continues to gather momentum.
That is all happening in Cowal. Stable population trends, employment levels and ferry carryings are all indicators of a positive economic performance in Cowal. The opportunities afforded by the Argyll forest park and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park provide additional prospects for economic growth in the area.
The decision on the boundaries of the first national park in Scotland will be made on the basis of the criteria in the enabling bill and the outcome of the consultation provided for in that bill.
Meeting closed at 18:59.