New Petitions

I thank the committee for its time. As the deputy convener said, I am joined by my colleague Maurice Corry. I hope that the committee understands the truly cross-party nature of the approach that is being taken to the petition and the support that it has received. Through the deputy convener, I would like to welcome the members of Friends of Geilston who are in the public gallery.

As the deputy convener rightly pointed out, the petition is set in the context of our national tourism strategy, which, as members will know, is all about showcasing Scotland as a visitor destination with first-choice, high-quality, value-for-money and memorable visitor experiences. That is the vision that has been set by the Scottish Government, and it is one that we all support.

Tourism is of course growing, particularly among visitors from mainland Europe. Scotland’s unique selling point is our heritage, our monuments, our castles and the stunning landscapes that we enjoy day in and day out. However, we know that if we are to sustain that, we need a range of high-quality visitor experiences. We need to get much better at linking destinations so that we can contribute to the maintenance of that overall experience.

It might surprise members to learn that gardens make a hugely important contribution to our tourism offer. A United Kingdom select committee is currently looking at the importance of gardens and their contribution to tourism and the natural heritage of the UK. A recent survey that was carried out by the British Tourist Authority said that 32 per cent of foreign visitors spent time in parks and gardens when on holiday. I was quite surprised at how high that figure was, because it was almost as high as the percentage—35 per cent—who visited some of our famous monuments, castles and attractions. The fact that there is not that much difference between those two figures underlines the significance of gardens to our tourism offer.

Scotland is blessed with some stunning gardens. We are all familiar with the botanic gardens at Kelvingrove in Glasgow and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, which attract hundreds of thousands of visitors, but there are many more. I will not take up the committee’s time by naming them all—we would be here all day—but I would like to talk about a very local example: that of Geilston garden in my constituency. The garden and house were gifted to the National Trust for Scotland by Miss Hendry, together with what was at the time quite a substantial endowment.

Geilston garden is listed in the UK’s top 100 gardens. I cannot quite remember its position but, for me—I suspect that this is the case for Maurice Corry, too—it is number 1 in that list. Rather disappointingly and surprisingly, in our view, in 2016, the NTS took the decision to close and dispose of the property and the gardens, and it transferred the endowment funds into its general funds. I found that an incredibly short-sighted decision, which was entirely contrary to the clear direction of travel that was set by the Scottish Government in its tourism strategy.

Friends of Geilston is challenging that decision on a number of fronts. First, it is challenging NTS’s refusal to use the financial endowment that was part of the bequest to renovate the property and reduce the operating deficit. It is doing so because the NTS’s accounting practice is such that no income is credited to the property because of the high percentage of visitors who are NTS members. That results in it appearing to have an operating deficit, but we know that NTS members use the gardens all the time. Friends of Geilston is also challenging the low rating that is given to the gardens under the NTS’s particular measures of value.

I must add that, in the context of the local economy, Geilston is really important. In my view, there is a natural linkage for NTS members between the gardens and the Hill house in Helensburgh, which is also owned by the NTS. When you look at the local businesses that have grown up as a result of the footfall that the gardens have generated, you can see Geilston’s significance for the local economy, as well as for the tourism strategy overall. Friends of Geilston is challenging the NTS’s decision for a number of reasons.

As part of the discussions that it has had, the organisation has worked with the NTS to commission a study on future options, and I invite the committee to ask the trust for a copy of that study, because I think that that would be instructive in looking at the petition. We are very clear about the fact that it is not just the gardens and the house that are under threat of closure—there are other properties that are run by the NTS that face similar challenges. We need to look at all those in the round because, collectively, they add to Scotland’s tourism offer.

Scottish gardens make a contribution to Scottish tourism. I do not think that that contribution is sufficiently recognised in the tourism strategy, but people are waking up to the issue. Some NTS gardens are getting investment; others are being—dare I say it—neglected and might well be on the list for closure. We cannot have a situation in which there is a concentration of investment in flagship properties, with gardens that form such an important part of the natural heritage of Scotland being ignored.

If I might be so bold, I invite the committee to come and visit Geilston. I would love to host a visit by members of the committee to Cardross to see the garden, because I am sure that they would enjoy the experience and fall in love with the garden, and that it would become their number 1 garden, too.

I suggest that the committee might want to write to the NTS—indeed, it might want to consider bringing the organisation before it, along with the Scottish Government—to obtain the study so that it can find out what local people have done to maintain the garden and the property and keep them in the future. The committee could perhaps ask the NTS what plans it has for other properties and gardens in its portfolio and invite it to reflect on the petition and the importance of such gardens to the tourism strategy in Scotland, and to stop any closures until it has had an opportunity to discuss what it is doing with the Scottish Government and with the committee.

I can certainly let the committee know in writing. I know that the endowment was quite substantial, but because it was not attached to the property and the gardens, the NTS was able to put the money into general funds. Obviously, we were very disappointed by that decision, but we recognise that, legally speaking, it was able to do it, even though, morally speaking, it should not have done.

That might be right.

I will respond to both questions. First of all, the study was carried out by EKOS; my understanding is that it was commissioned by the NTS, which worked alongside the community to shape its terms. Certainly I was interviewed for it.

I understand that that study is now complete. I have not been provided with a copy by the NTS, but I would invite the committee to request one. Hopefully, I will receive one in the post after those at the NTS have watched this committee meeting.

I think that there is a strategic issue here. We are naturally concerned about our local garden, but the fact is that it could be your local garden tomorrow. Perhaps I am being unfair, but we are concerned that the NTS is focusing on the big-ticket visitor attractions, while gardens that are smaller but which are nevertheless critically important to our tourism offer do not get taken into account.

The local community adore the gardens—indeed, you have just heard from Maurice Corry and me how much so. However, it is a huge responsibility for a community group to take on a house that requires quite extensive repairs of at least £1 million, if not £2 million—I suspect that it is nearer £2 million.

We also do not have, at a strategic level, the opportunity to make linkages with other NTS properties such as the one that we have described with the Hill house, which is 10 minutes up the road. It makes sense for one body to look at all of these things collectively instead of the whole situation being fragmented and these places being run by disparate community groups.

We have a great bunch of enthusiastic members now, but, to be honest, what is going to happen in 20 years’ time? The group is saying, quite properly, that it will help in any way it can—and, believe me, its members are very active—but taking on what should be the responsibility of the NTS is, it thinks, probably an error, given the need to keep this at a very strategic level.

I go back to the figures, which stunned me. I did not realise that 32 per cent of foreign visitors were visiting gardens and parks, which is nearly as many as the 35 per cent visiting famous monuments. That is a huge figure. We have a great garden network, but it is just not being exploited in our tourism strategy. We need to fix that, and we need to keep not just Geilston but other gardens like it, given their substantial contribution to our tourism offer in Scotland.

May I invite you to put that question to the NTS? Those are the questions that we are asking.

The building did not get into its current state of repair overnight, so investment in the building has clearly been an issue, as have repairs. I am sure that the funding that is being put into the general fund will be used appropriately, but it can used on anything. To our evident disappointment, it is no longer tied to the house and the garden. I did not know the two ladies who lived in the house, but everybody locally tells me that their legacy was about the house and garden—as Maurice Corry pointed out—and not about generally contributing to the NTS’s coffers.

Thank you very much, convener, and thank you to the committee.