New Petitions

I thank the convener for allowing me to speak to the petition, which has been partly overtaken by events in the past few days.Following many letters of support from MSPs, I received a letter from Mr John Nicolson of the Executive's countryside and natural heritage unit, which said that funding for the national park for 2002-03 was increased to £4.8 million, which is £1.9 million more than had been proposed. I am sure that the revision of the figure is due in no small measure to the MSPs who supported the claim for the original sum that Scottish Natural Heritage had advised the Scottish Executive to provide.However, the figure still falls short of the sum that Scottish Natural Heritage recommended. The interim committee is happy with the figure, as it is an improvement, but the Association of Community Councils for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park remains concerned that Scotland's first national park is being downsized and, perhaps more important, that the sums that have been allocated for the next three-year cycle will not meet the needs of the new national park board. The amount should not be less than that recommended by SNH, which was the same as the 2000-01 level.Moreover, by the end of the year, the Cairngorms park should approach an operational state and will require a similar sum for its operation. I fear that the Scottish Executive may therefore decide that a smaller sum is appropriate for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.Scottish Natural Heritage has reviewed what the park will have to undertake. There is a considerable list and that has implications for staffing, accommodation, infrastructure and meeting the growing demands of the community futures programme. I will give a flavour of some of the undertakings that the park will have to make. The emphasis is on developing a strong visitor management capability, which involves countryside recreation, rural tourism and environmental enhancement schemes in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. The national park board will be responsible for many matters. When I submitted the petition, I attached Scottish Natural Heritage's advice to the Scottish Executive. I hope that everyone has had a chance to read it. SNH says that the figures that it established for the park have been overtaken by the large number of tasks that the interim committee will have to do. Page 4 of that advice gives a list of a dozen or more items that SNH advises the national park will have to do.I ask the committee to petition the Scottish Executive to reconsider the sum that it has proposed to the interim committee—£4.8 million—and to ensure that, in the next three-year cycle, the figure that Scottish Natural Heritage recommends is maintained for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park board and for the Cairngorms national park board.

I accept that the Scottish Natural Heritage figure referred to year 3, but that has been overtaken by events. First, the increased cost of living has altered the original figure. Secondly, increased demands have been placed on the interim committee by things such as the community futures programme, which is a programme to regenerate all 44 communities in and around the national park, but which is dependent on money from the interim committee. It will be dependent for its income on the national park board when that is set up. If the amount available to the national park board is restricted in years 1 and 2 because of financial considerations, the community futures programme may not meet the aspirations that it has engendered in the communities.I contend that the Scottish Natural Heritage figure is as relevant for year 1 as it is for years 2 and 3. A budget of £5.3 million to £5.8 million is considerably less than that of the national parks in England and Wales, where the national parks have budgets and staffing levels that are commensurate with what is required. Those national parks have something like 110 staff. Although SNH talked about a figure of £5.3 million to £5.8 million for year 3, the needs of the national park demand that that figure be brought forward to years 1 and 2.

Is that on page 5, which compares the £6.6 million budget for the Lake District national park with the suggested £5.3 to £5.8 million for the Loch Lomond national park? It also gives the budget for the North York Moors national park as £5.7 million and the budgets for the two smaller national parks in Dartmoor and the Broads as being £3.2 million and £3.5 million. Is that the table that you refer to?

The only table that I have is on pages 4 and page 5.

The table on page 4 also details the number of full-time equivalent staff.

Yes. It is unlikely that the Scottish Executive will be able to increase the amount that it has already allocated to the interim committee. Although the interim committee is happy with the amount that it has received—and although I accept that the Scottish Executive has increased the sum offered—I am concerned that the increased demands on the Scottish Executive that will result from the Cairngorms national park will mean that the Executive will decide to downsize the allocation in the next three-year cycle. I ask the committee to petition the Scottish Executive to ensure that the sums allocated to the national park for the future are in accordance with the recommendations in "National Parks: Scottish Natural Heritage's Advice to Government".

Would that fulfil my request?

I would be very happy indeed with that.

Are you saying that I can be present at the meeting?

Okay. Thank you.