GUEST ARTICLE
The Cairngorms National Park
the boundary debate goes on
by John Swinney MSP
One of the great strengths of the Scottish Parliament, is the ability of Members to secure time to debate issues of concern within their constituency or further afield. Often debates are held taking forward issues that perhaps unusually command all-party support. I had the good fortune in late April to lead a debate on the boundaries of the Cairngorms National Park. This issue has vexed me and more importantly my constituents since the Scottish Executive took an arbitrary and illogical decision to exclude Highland and East Perthshire from the National Park. And it is a concern that has commanded all-party support.
I very much welcome the establishment of the National Park and support its work and role within Scotland today. I accept there is a vigorous debate to be had on the direction and performance of the National Park and that debate must continue over time. But for me the pressing issue is to address a fundamental problem in the design of the National Park which I believe undermines the effectiveness of the Park and brings damaging consequences for some of the constituents I have the privilege to represent in the areas of Highland and East Perthshire.
In September 2000, Ministers made a formal proposal to establish a National Park in the Cairngorms area. Ministers invited Scottish Natural Heritage to undertake the consultation on this proposal and for a period of 20 weeks SNH listened carefully to the views and opinion of interested parties on the boundaries, powers, functions, governance arrangements and financial provisions of the Park.
This exercise was important in two respects. Firstly, SNH were able to undertake a dispassionate assessment of the issues and give the Government a clear, robust and balanced proposal. Secondly, SNH were able to effectively engage local communities and individuals giving confidence that the Park would be established on a sound footing.
Regrettably the Government chose not to follow all of the recommendations of SNH and as a result public confidence in the process of consultation has taken a heavy knock. Many of my constituents in the Highland and East Perthshire areas who took part in the consultation exercise question why they should have bothered as the Government paid such scant attention to the output.
On the question of boundaries, SNH recommended the Park area should include the Central Cairngorms and Lochnagar massifs and many of the straths which immediately surround them in Badenoch and Strathspey, in Glenlivet, in Donside and Deeside and, crucially in the south in my constituency, the Angus Glens and Highland Perthshire.
The Government's first response to these proposals largely excluded the areas of my constituency in the Angus Glens and in Highland Perthshire. After inquiry by the Rural Development Committee of Parliament, and much pressure from outside Parliament, the Government revised its proposals and made provision for the inclusion of the Angus Glens. Unfortunately the area of Highland Perthshire remained excluded.
Despite the unanimous support of the Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament, Ministers stuck fast to this view despite giving no credible explanation for the exclusion of Highland and East Perthshire.
And two years on, no Minister can give us an explanation why the area had been excluded on the basis of topography, land character or land similarity. All Ministers can say is that they needed to reduce the number of local authorities involved in the Park. So politics rather than land has dictated the design of our National Park.
My debate was called to give Ministers one further opportunity to think again about this issue. I think there is a compelling case for the inclusion of Highland and East Perthshire in the National Park. The area is similar in topography to the areas that are included to the North and the East. The area includes natural gateways to the National Park at Blair Atholl and through Glenshee. The area includes areas of natural character worthy of as much protection as the areas included in the Park. The area is fundamental to establishing the credibility of the Park to secure World Heritage Site Status.
But despite strong and consistent arguments from all shades of opinion in the Scottish Parliament the Minister said no to an extension of the boundaries. In fact it was clear there is a parliamentary majority for expanding the boundaries just not the will in Government to tackle the issue.
The Minister did however say two interesting things. Firstly the issue would be revisited in the 2008 review of the Park. Secondly he encouraged areas like Blair Atholl to seize the opportunity of working with the National Park and creating new opportunities as a result. My innovative constituents do not need the Minister to encourage them to do this but it certainly is welcome.
The people of Highland Perthshire want to be part of the Cairngorms National Park. Along with the excellent members of PARC [Perthshire Alliance for the Real Cairngorms] who have contributed so much to pursue this issue and members of other political parties, I will continue to press this issue. We will try further parliamentary initiatives including a Member's Bill to rectify this anomaly. We are determined Highland and East Perthshire will join the National Park sooner rather than later.
John Swinney is Member of the Scottish Parliament for North Tayside. He was Leader of the Scottish National Party from 2000-04. In his leisure time John is a keen cyclist and walker. He is married to Elizabeth Quigley and has two children.
We would like to draw readers' attention to the official report of the April 20th Parliamentary Motion that was raised by John Swinney, which can be accessed at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-05/sor0420-02.htm#Col16213
|
