Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Official Report 838KB pdf

---

National Parks

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-07932, in the name of Claire Baker, on national parks: unfinished business. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes the recent report by the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, Unfinished Business: A National Parks Strategy for Scotland; notes that the report states that “Scotland’s landscapes rank amongst the best in the world”; further notes its claim that “there are further areas of outstanding importance for landscape and recreation in Scotland worthy of National Park designation, and that this would best be done in the context of an overall agreed national strategy”; understands that the report identifies seven areas that should be considered for designation as a national park: the Ben Nevis/Glen Coe/Black Mount area, the Cheviot Hills, an area based around Mull, Coll and Tiree, Galloway, Glen Affric, Harris and Wester Ross; believes that, by protecting the environment, attracting tourists and providing social and economic benefits to the communities that they serve and the rest of the country, the national parks at Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms have proved to be successful in meeting the aims set out by the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, and notes calls for a Scotland-wide debate on the way forward for national parks.

17:06

Establishing the national parks was one of the early achievements of the Scottish Parliament. The legislation was steered through by Sarah Boyack, who was then a Labour minister. I am pleased that she is taking part in this evening’s debate.

This year is the 10th anniversary of the creation of the two national parks: Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and the Cairngorms. The path to establishing national parks was long. Cairngorms was first proposed in the 1931 Addison report and it took devolution to deliver the legislation and have Scotland join the global national parks movement.

The 3,500 national parks across the world recognise and protect areas of outstanding natural beauty. They strengthen international reputation and demonstrate a long-term commitment to the natural environment. Indeed, the Scottish model of national parks interests people from all over Europe, as they can see that working in partnership can deliver real change and an important focus on joined-up management across conservation, the visitor experience and rural development.

We know that although Scotland has much to offer—wild mountains, pristine rivers and lochs, ancient forests, stunning coastlines and islands that are rich with wildlife and history—we also face challenges in protecting and enhancing our biodiversity, getting the right balance between different interests so that the environment is not compromised, and using land, one of Scotland’s strongest resources, in a way that works in harmony with communities and supports sustainable development.

I thank those members who supported the motion and enabled the debate to be held. I introduced the debate to help concentrate minds on where we go next. Two parks is surely not the end of the process, and the report, “Unfinished Business: A National Parks Strategy for Scotland”, which has been prepared by the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, gives a strong case for further designation. I thank those organisations for their work in this area. I also thank Ramblers Scotland for the briefing that it prepared for the debate.

Our experience of existing national parks shows that they can bring a wide range of environmental, social and economic benefits. The four aims of national parks, which are established in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, are:

“to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area, to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area, to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public, and to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.”

I recently sat next to Grant Moir, the chief executive of Cairngorms National Park, at a Scottish Council for Development and Industry dinner on the rural economy. I heard about the good work that Cairngorms National Park is doing, as well as some of the unavoidable challenges that it faces as the lead authority for the area.

We can see how national parks can respond positively to some of the key challenges for our rural areas, such as the economy, employment and sustainability. They are a driver for growth: the Cairngorms area has survived the recession well; it has low unemployment, a growing population and good growth. Cairngorms National Park recently launched the make it yours campaign with Cairngorms business partnership, through which businesses will come together to work on an innovative and interesting approach to promote the national park brand.

National parks deliver on nature conservation, and the Cairngorms nature action plan shows the way forward for delivering on the 2020 challenge on biodiversity—and all of us in the chamber know how challenging that will be.

National parks are also a showcase for how sustainable development can be delivered on the ground. If members want to know where they can see cutting edge and innovative solutions that are being developed to take on the tricky issues in rural Scotland they need look only at our national parks.

There is no dispute that the establishment of the parks is a good thing. The question, after 10 years, is what is next. In 2009, the Scottish Government carried out a review of the two existing parks, but the remit was fairly narrow, with a focus on the existing roles and composition. Stage 2 of the review was dropped and the opportunity to have a broader discussion was lost. In addition, although the review proposed the establishment of a national strategy group chaired by ministers, that has not materialised. Perhaps the minister will say whether such a strategy group will be forthcoming and, if so, what the timetable for that will be. I agree that a national group would be helpful and would enable discussion on a forward strategy.

We know that we are in a time of financial constraint and the national parks authorities face a significant cut in next year’s and the following year’s budget. It therefore might seem unreasonable to call for further national parks, but a strategy group would allow opportunity for future planning, to set the forward path and to be clear on Scotland’s aspirations for national parks.

The unfinished business report recommended a list of areas that are believed to be suitable for designation and set out the criteria used to identify the areas. We are some way off reaching an agreement on whether more parks are needed, never mind determining where those parks might be, but some interesting examples are included in the report. Designating the Cheviots would be an extension of the Northumberland national park. The border between Scotland and England runs along the ridge of the Cheviot hills and although the southern flank is in the Northumberland national park, the northern side has limited protection through areas of great landscape value designation. However, it can be argued that the Scotland side is more impressive—such an argument would not be a difficult one for the minister to make. That could be the first cross-border park in the United Kingdom; it has the potential to extend all the benefits of international attraction, tourism and marketing, as well as conservation interests across the border.

The unfinished business report also argues for a coastal marine national park. That was the sense of direction prior to 2007, after which the focus on broader marine issues shifted and led to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. In recent evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee about climate adaptation, concerns were raised about Scotland’s soft coastline and the need for greater strategic support for coastal partnerships. I ask the minister to comment on whether he sees a future for a coastal and marine national park and how that would complement other designations.

The report also highlights the potential for a national park in Galloway that would encompass the national forest park, which is one of only four dark skies parks in the western world. Other members may want to highlight other areas for discussion.

Next year, we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of John Muir, the central figure in the worldwide national parks movement. Although the debate may move on to what should or could be designated, designation is complex and community consent and support is vital in going forward. The establishment of the boundaries is also complex and, while effective governance and management are essential, they can be tricky to get right. However, this debate is not about the detail; it is, I hope, the start of a debate on how we go forward and positively progress national parks for the future of Scotland.

17:13

I congratulate Claire Baker on securing the debate. Although I supported her motion, she will be aware that I have lodged what I hope she sees as a friendly amendment. I will refer to that later because it is pertinent to the debate.

I share Claire Baker’s call for a Scotland-wide debate, beyond these walls and this bubble, with the Scottish public. However, we need to keep within realistic funding packages, as we know that we have tight constraints.

I also share the sentiments in the “Unfinished Business” report that

“Scotland’s landscape ranks amongst the best in the world”.

Some of that sits right on the Parliament’s doorstep. We take Arthur’s Seat for granted and, not far flung from here, the Pentland hills have what is called a stunning landscape signature, which lets people know that they are approaching the capital city.

As you are aware, Presiding Officer, my amendment

“notes what it”—

the Parliament—

“considers the important distinction between national and regional parks, such as Pentland Hills”

and

“Clyde Muirshiel”.

The distinction is relevant.

A national park area has substantial protection. There are structured and audited governance arrangements as well as substantial central Government funding, although private funding is levered in.

Sometimes the restrictions are not always popular with the residents, but they should always remember that they are lucky to live in a national park area. It is a privilege to live in an area that is for the use of generations to come.

Regional parks are substantially different from national parks. The first regional parks were set up in the 1960s and the one that I am interested in—the Pentland hills regional park—was established in 1986. Its governance is much looser than that of the national parks. It simply involves a coming together of the local authorities that bound it to fund it in cash or in kind by providing wardens or funding to do the same things that are done in the national parks, such as ensuring that the public can use it responsibly, repairing paths and assisting businesses. Its governance is not really structured and it does not have central Government input—the input comes through local authorities, whose funding is at a pinchpoint.

The problem with the Pentland hills regional park is that when it was set up—which was at the time of regional authorities—the Borders Regional Council and Strathclyde Regional Council areas did not fall within it, with the result that only 43 per cent of the park is protected. I publicise the fact that I intend to lodge a bill to extend the boundary of the regional park to take in the southern part, which would bring in another two local authorities. Before I scare the horses, I make it clear that I am making a distinction between a national park, where planning is rightly regulated, and a regional park, which has very limited protection. I know that some parties in the Pentland hills regional park are frightened of the park becoming a national park in one leap, but the protection that regional park status brings should be there, even though it is less than the protection that national park status brings.

I have no intention of altering the constitution, as such, of the Pentland hills regional park, but I would like the debate about national parks, which Claire Baker has rightly brought to the chamber, to embrace regional parks and, indeed, national areas of scenic beauty. We have a very mixed bag of designations and definitions. If we are to protect Scotland’s landscape, we must bring those together in any debate that we have so that we understand how they interlock and the different functions that they have. We must also talk about them in language that the public will understand so that we all benefit from the landscape around us, particularly as the built environment encroaches on it more and more.

I congratulate Claire Baker on securing the debate. I hope that she does not mind me introducing the issue of regional parks, because I think that the two types of park are strongly linked, and not many people know about the distinction between regional parks and national parks.

17:17

I congratulate Claire Baker on securing the debate and welcome the publication by the SCNP and the APRS of their report, “Unfinished Business”.

It is great to be having a members’ business debate on national parks, which were the subject of the first members’ business debate in the new Scottish Parliament in 1999. There had been a long-standing campaign for a national park in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, but there was less of a consensus in the Cairngorms area. In fact, in the early days of the Parliament, some were opposed to a national park in the Cairngorms.

I think that our national parks are one of the success stories of devolution. The legislative process in the House of Lords would have been a huge challenge, so national parks were one of Donald Dewar’s first priorities and the National Parks (Scotland) Bill featured in the first programme for government. Such was the success of our national parks that it led to the inclusion of highland Perthshire in the Cairngorms national park. That was partly a tribute to the success of the work of the Cairngorms National Park Authority and its first chief executive, Jane Hope. I want to pay tribute to the contribution that she made, because as well as leading the park for nearly a decade, she was the lead official on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill team and did an excellent job in that role, too.

As Claire Baker observed, although we had debates on national parks in the previous parliamentary session, the Scottish Government has done no serious work to progress the national parks agenda by making new designations since 2007. As the Cairngorms national park and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park have passed their 10th anniversaries, now is a good time for us to come back to that agenda, look at their successes and learn lessons for the future. We should pick up the agenda that the SCNP and the APRS are arguing for, as it is truly unfinished business. The Ramblers are right to point to the centenary of the birth of John Muir as a good time to kick-start that agenda for the future.

The first two national parks were never meant to be Scotland’s only national parks; they were simply our top priorities at the time, from the point of view of effort and funding.

Claire Baker is right that we need a ministerial lead in looking to the future, given the length of the set-up time from thinking about creating a national park to actually designating it. I am sure that there will be competing interests both for and against designations across the country and there is certainly a debate to be had about resources. However, we need to be having that debate now, instead of putting it off to the future.

I thank Sarah Boyack for taking an intervention and assure that I will not take too much time over it. I simply wonder whether, having recognised the resource issue, she can in the remaining part of her speech say whether we should risk disappointing communities by setting up opportunities only to have them fall because we do not have sufficient resources.

I will give you that time back, Ms Boyack.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

That is exactly why we need a ministerial lead. Over the years, there have been many suggestions for different national parks in different parts of the country; indeed, a Scottish Natural Heritage report, for one, made a number of suggestions. Ministers could set the terms and framework of the debate and the various expectations and make clear whether we are looking at on-land parks or the coastal and marine parks that Claire Baker referred to. However, the choice between doing absolutely nothing and waiting for a long time is one that we should not have to make. The integrated planning and management that have been carried out by public bodies and the work with park communities and businesses provide good lessons from which we can learn, and we are missing out by not taking the debate forward.

We should be looking to the future. That is why I support the call for a ministerially led national parks strategy group, which would set a framework for the future and expectations—realistic ones, of course. We should not miss out on the huge benefits of national parks, but that is what is happening at the moment.

Claire Baker made a fascinating suggestion about the Cheviots, for example. There will be arguments for and against proposals but we need to get back to a discussion that is not for the future but for now. For every conflict that has emerged over our two national parks, there has also been a fantastic achievement and we need to bring the debate into the Parliament and engage third parties and everyone else across the country who has a real interest in the issue. We will always have a limited amount of money but the benefits that the parks bring and the lessons that have been learnt from the first decade present opportunities that we should be seizing in 2014.

17:22

As other members have done, I congratulate Claire Baker on securing the debate.

As a member of the Rural Affairs Committee from 1999, I was involved in Parliament’s earliest consideration of national parks and can say without any doubt that the title of Claire Baker’s motion—and the report on which it is based—is absolutely correct. “National Parks, Unfinished Business” precisely and directly sums up the current position.

Having been a member of the committee that scrutinised the bill that paved the way for national parks and which was eventually passed, I then had the very considerable honour and great pleasure of convening the committee during the creation of Scotland’s two national parks. As I think Claire Baker pointed out, at no time during scrutiny of the legislation or the consequent creation of the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national parks was it ever suggested or recommended that they be Scotland’s only national parks. As I have said, what we have at the moment is unfinished business.

The enthusiasm and commitment that I witnessed during the passage of the legislation, during which the committee travelled to both proposed parks to take evidence, was, to be frank, awe inspiring. Indeed, so impressed was I at what I saw and heard that I went into the 2003 election pledging that if I won the constituency vote I would campaign for Scotland’s third national park to be in Galloway. It is on that topic that I want to focus brief remarks in the remainder of the time that is left to me.

As it happened, I won the election and set about drawing together various potentially interested stakeholders to discuss the prospects for the creation of a Galloway national park. I take no pleasure at all in reporting that the only support that I received was from the Federation of Small Businesses in Dumfries and Galloway. Dumfries and Galloway Council, the Forestry Commission, VisitScotland, Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway as it was then, Scottish Natural Heritage and others were all at best lukewarm, so it became pretty clear pretty quickly that the prospect was more or less dead in the water.

Hope reared its optimistic head once again when, as has been mentioned, the then Administration took a look at the possibility of creating a marine national park. I believe that there were seven proposed sites for that park, and the Solway Firth proposal—which is in Dumfries and Galloway—was the only one that did not give rise to significant local objections.

Again, I flagged up the potential of the possibility of the creation of a land and marine-based national park, which the Scottish Campaign for National Parks very much supported at the time; indeed, I think that it still does. As has been mentioned, the incoming Administration following the 2007 election ditched the idea of marine national parks and, until now—other than the process that has already been mentioned—not a lot more has been said about national parks of any description.

Members might well ask why on earth I would wish to return to the subject of a possible Galloway national park after two pretty robust rejections. That is because, other than the fact that I am a born optimist, it is extraordinary how attitudes have changed in a decade. Some of the agencies that previously rejected the possibility have very much changed their opinions. It is significant that Dumfries and Galloway Council has, and it has been joined by the increasingly influential Dumfries and Galloway Chamber of Commerce. The idea is still strongly supported by the Federation of Small Businesses as well as many local business associations, community associations and other community bodies to which I have spoken.

Ever since the M74 was built—indeed, I suspect long before that—the people of Dumfries and Galloway have desperately sought something that will get people who are travelling north on the motorway network to turn left at Gretna. I have never changed my original view that a Galloway national park would bring that about. Such a national park is recommended in the excellent report on which this debate is based. I commend both organisations for the report. I whole-heartedly support it, the Galloway national park suggestion and the motion.

17:26

I am glad to be here to welcome the publication of the national parks strategy for Scotland. I thank my colleague Claire Baker for securing the debate, which seems timely, and support the remarks by Sarah Boyack and Alex Fergusson, who were members of Parliament at the start of the process and have reflected on that in their speeches.

The words “Unfinished Business” in the report’s title are apt. The report points to the vast network of natural landscapes that should be ideal settings for a number of national parks, although there are currently only two of them out of a designation of 15 across the UK, I understand. The time has come for us to add to those two. Labour introduced the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, and things have moved on since then.

According to the report, the expert recommendation is that the Scottish landscape should be able to support four or five national parks, or perhaps more. It points out that neither of the existing national parks has marine or coastal features, as my colleague Claire Baker stated. I certainly agree with the argument that at least one additional national park should include a suitable area of the Scottish coastline, considering that Scotland has such a rich coastal environment. I would say this as a South Scotland MSP, but perhaps the Solway Firth might be an option.

A marine national park was mooted at stakeholder meetings in Dumfries—one of which I attended—in the third session of the Scottish Parliament. That one meeting demonstrated to me how clearly the model will allow stakeholders including the local authority, inshore fishermen, tourism providers and non-governmental organisations to come together to allow an early resolution of any potential conflicts and to support a sustainable way forward for the precious marine environment and marine biodiversity.

The benefits of increasing the number of national parks cannot be understated. The protection that is granted to such spaces ensures that the natural environment is handled with greater care, which allows biodiversity to develop and provides essential green carbon sinks, which will help to tackle climate change.

Partnership working involving local communities is a fine model of sustainable development in action, and it supports the rural economy in a sustainable way. In the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park, for example, great efforts have been made to preserve the water vole population, and plans are under way to create the largest native woodland in Scotland.

With regard to climate change, the Cairngorms national park has been running an initiative to encourage local residents to switch to wood as a carbon-neutral fuel source.

As my colleague Claire Baker highlighted, there is the potential for new national parks in the eastern part of my region. I have been made aware by constituents of an interesting proposal relating to the area. The national park strategy was discussed at a public meeting in Yetholm at which John Mayhew, from the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, and the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland raised the idea of a Scottish Cheviots park. Significantly, it was suggested that such a project could be linked, as Claire Baker stressed, to the existing Northumberland national park, which reaches right up to the Scottish border. The proposal makes not only geographic sense but economic sense, as it would create more tourism opportunities in the Borders, provide environmental drivers for biodiversity and make social sense for rural communities. In addition, the proposal would provide the opportunity for good cross-border working.

Again, I congratulate Claire Baker on taking the issue forward, and I hope to hear from the minister about a possible review.

I invite Paul Wheelhouse to respond to the debate. Minister, you have seven minutes.

17:31

Many interesting and positive comments have been made about national parks in Scotland. I congratulate Claire Baker on bringing the issue to the attention of members today.

Much has been said in the debate about the successes of our two existing national parks, and I fully endorse those remarks. Scotland’s national parks are two of our greatest national assets and are very important for Scotland. I fully recognise their success—which was outlined by Claire Baker, Sarah Boyack, Claudia Beamish, Alex Fergusson and Christine Grahame—in protecting species and habitats, promoting tourism, and providing social and economic benefits to the communities that they serve and to the rest of the country.

Recently, I had the pleasure of chairing two meetings with the national parks and their partners to review progress with the latest five-year partnership plans. I was struck by the extent to which both national parks have a broad range of partners in the public, private and third sectors with which they are working to deliver both locally and on a national scale.

I met the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland at the beginning of September to discuss the “Unfinished Business” report. The meeting included Charles Strang of the APRS, who lives in Yetholm in the Scottish Borders and who is particularly passionate about the Cheviots as a candidate for a national park, and Mr Mayhew. We had a candid exchange of views on the report’s main recommendations. I welcome the opportunity provided by Claire Baker’s motion to share my views with members today.

First, there is the report’s proposition, which is repeated in the motion, that there should be a long-term national strategy for future national parks in Scotland. I fully understand where the SCNP and the APRS are coming from on that. Nearly half of the report sets out the trials and tribulations of the national park movement in Scotland over the past 65 years. As Alex Fergusson noted, the language used in the report—for example, “The Long Struggle” and “Unfinished Business”—says it all: the SCNP and the APRS think that there is a lot of catching up to do, which I acknowledge. That is why they are now calling for a long-term strategy in which at least seven areas of Scotland would be earmarked for future national park status.

There are two main reasons why I cannot agree to such a strategy at this time, the first of which is about resources in the current economic climate. It cannot have escaped the attention of the SCNP and the APRS that these are difficult times and that there are considerable pressures on public finances at present. We have suffered an 11 per cent drop in our resource budget and a 26 per cent cut in capital. As members have acknowledged, we simply do not have the resources at this time for new national park authorities, which would of course require set-up costs and a recurrent cost thereafter.

Secondly, I have said to the SCNP and the APRS that I appreciate that my decision will disappoint them, but I do not think that the suggestion of earmarking areas for possible future national park status is a good one at this time.

I, too, have had meetings with John Mayhew and others who are interested in the issue. My impression was more that they were keen for the debate to be on the table.

On the order of designation for the proposed national parks, the report states:

“We consider that a pragmatic approach should be taken”.

I do not get the impression that the SCNP and the APRS are calling for all seven proposed national parks to be designated; I think that they are asking for a decision for the long term and a commitment that there will be future designations, with perhaps some concentration on the order of them.

Presiding Officer, I look to you for guidance on whether I will get that time back.

You will.

I understand the member’s point, and I will come on to explain the wider strategy.

The report states:

“We consider that a pragmatic approach should be taken to the order in which the above areas”—

the ones that Claire Baker listed—

“are designated, recognising that there will inevitably be wide variations in the rate at which local support grows”.

That sounds to me a somewhat unsatisfactory approach. I will explain why, because I appreciate that that might concern the member.

In essence, the approach suggests that areas be identified for possible future designation. The Scottish Government’s sense is that there would be a real danger that that would encourage the various communities to engage in a quasi-bidding process to demonstrate support for seeking national park status. I do not think that such a process was envisaged in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000—I acknowledge Sarah Boyack’s close involvement in that—and I do not think that it is what members would want, either.

To take such an approach would also be somewhat irresponsible because it would create expectations of designation and would inevitably lead to disappointment for those whose areas were not selected. There was considerable disappointment in Harris, for example, when it was not designated as a national park.

I will now say a little about the Scottish National Party’s national park commitment in our 2011 manifesto. I am sure that members are aware of that, although it was not directly raised today. The point that I would like to make is that it is a commitment to engage in discussions with communities and not a commitment to declare a national strategy and let communities respond to that.

It is instructive to consider the experience of Harris. In 2009, the community in Harris voted in favour of pursuing national park status as a means of addressing population decline and a lack of employment. However, the then Minister for Environment made it clear that she would not consider such designation unless the local authority was supportive. In 2010, Western Isles Council conducted a thorough year-long study of all aspects of what was proposed, including for example the role of a Harris national park in relation to planning, but it concluded that a convincing case had not been made for national park status for Harris.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am really short of time, so I will not, unless the Presiding Officer gives me some latitude.

I will allow you extra time if you wish to take the intervention, minister.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Will the minister or his officials engage with the Pentland hills regional park consultative forum? He will be happy to hear that it is not looking for money. Will he engage with the forum on the way forward to allay its fears about what a regional park means, as opposed to a national park? Will the minister’s officials do that if he is too busy?

As the member knows, I have written to her on the matter. The key issue is really the support of local authorities for the extension to the regional park boundary. It is for the member to make the case to the communities and the local authorities on what is meant by a regional park and a national park. I can certainly confirm that a regional park is a different beast from a national park. We strongly support the work of the Pentland hills regional park and indeed Clyde Muirshiel regional park.

The Scottish Government felt that the best outcome for the Harris community was not necessarily a national park. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has already provided assistance to Harris—for example, support for the £1.2 million Heritage Lottery Fund landscape partnership, and support for the Harris hotel, Hotel Hebrides, Kilda Cruises, the Isle of Harris golf club, fishery piers and the community shop—to deliver the economic benefits that were sought through a designation for Harris.

I am aware that the primary focus of the SCNP and the APRS, in seeking further national park designation, is the protection of the landscape. I recognise the strong calls for that, but it seems to me that they have something different in mind from the model that the Parliament agreed, in which the fourth aim of national parks is to promote sustainable economic development and social development of the area’s communities. As members have said, the parks have been achieving that successfully, in balance with the other aims, over the past 10 years.

I fully recognise and welcome the support for the concept of national parks, and I have no doubt that those who work in them and the stakeholders who are involved with them will welcome the Parliament’s support today for their work and its recognition of the successes that they have achieved. I acknowledge that they contribute more than £260 million to local economies and attract more than 5 million visitors a year. They are positive players in our conservation and biodiversity objectives.

Investment in the parks in recent years, including for shovel-ready projects, reflects their economic importance and our continued commitment to enhancing facilities for visitors, supporting green tourism and creating new employment opportunities. At this time, our priority is to make sure that the two national parks are as successful as they can be. We should not risk their financial health by looking at other, additional parks, which would raise expectations among communities only for them to be disappointed at the end of the process.

Meeting closed at 17:39.