Continued Petitions

The final continued petition on today’s agenda is PE1721, which is on the national tourism strategy for Scotland and the role of the National Trust for Scotland. Jackie Baillie is again present for our consideration of the petition.

The petition, which was lodged by John Hanks on behalf of Friends of Geilston, calls on the Scottish Government to meet the National Trust for Scotland to discuss the role that the NTS can play in the context of the national tourism strategy—tourism Scotland 2020—and, within that, the future of any NTS property that is under threat of closure, such as Geilston garden, near Cardross.

When the committee previously considered the petition in June, it agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the NTS, VisitScotland, the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee at Westminster. The clerk’s note summarises the responses that have been received. The submissions outline the ways in which the National Trust for Scotland is involved in the national tourism strategy, both as a member of the Scottish Tourism Alliance and as a key member of the heritage tourism group, which is the asset group for the heritage pillar of the strategy. The Scottish Government states in its submission that the National Trust for Scotland is an independent charity and that, as such, management of its properties is a matter for it and its board.

Since the meeting papers were published, the committee has received a submission from the petitioner, which has been provided in hard copy to members this morning.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? It might be useful if I again ask Jackie Baillie to make some comments to inform our thinking.

I am always happy to be useful to the committee, convener. Geilston garden is in my constituency, and I note that we have been joined by the petitioners in the public gallery, which demonstrates their continuing interest in the subject.

I was struck by the fact that it was a select committee in another place—the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee—that noted the importance of gardens to our tourism offer, not just in Scotland but across the UK. I have no doubt that the National Trust for Scotland will be involved in discussions, meetings and working groups on the national tourism strategy, but it appears to be taking decisions in relation to its assets in isolation and without regard to the strategy, because it has considered the closure of Geilston garden.

The petitioners are concerned that decisions on the garden may be based on flawed data. I am using Geilston as an example, but it could apply to any other garden in the ownership of the NTS. It has underestimated the visitor numbers for Geilston, where there has, in fact, been a 20 per cent rise, but you would not know that to look at the paperwork from the NTS.

I remind you that the petition is not about Geilston gardens.

I know that, but I am using it as an example because it demonstrates what can happen with NTS-owned assets.

No attempt has been made to count the number of NTS members visiting those gardens—or, potentially, any gardens—or their contribution. They are not just local assets; most gardens are a wider asset. Geilston is a west of Scotland asset and others are probably a national asset.

Committee members will recall that the NTS commissioned a report from Ekos on options for the future, which I was happy to supply to the committee. The NTS has since indicated that it wants to do an enabling development and that it will review the decision in a year. That is welcome, but it is an incredibly short timescale, and more time may be needed because of planning issues.

However, Geilston is an example of what is happening and its closure is not necessarily the only thing that the NTS will do. It has pointed out that it spent about £98 million on conservation work in 2018-19, but that it has a backlog of repairs across portfolios of £46 million. Given that backlog, people are naturally worried that the NTS will consider the disposal of more assets; it would be a mistake for it not to realise the assets that gardens represent for its tourism strategy.

I respectfully ask the convener to keep the petition open. It would be useful to know about the progress made by the NTS in relation Geilston as an indication of any wider issues with the gardens in its portfolio and to understand the timetable and the steps that it intends to take in relation to those gardens. I also ask her to write to the Scottish Government to ask it to consider the importance of gardens to tourism, because I am not sure that we have captured that.

The petition asks the Scottish Government to meet the National Trust for Scotland to discuss the role that it can play in the context of the national tourism strategy. That has been done. The committee cannot deal with a decision about an individual closure, so we need to ask ourselves a question. I understand that people who are campaigning to keep the gardens open will use whatever opportunities they can to make their case, but that is not what the petition asks us to do—and it would not be appropriate for the committee to do that.

The question is whether we end up in a place in which the petition has asked for one thing, but, when the motives behind that have become clear, we then start addressing those—a kind of petition creep, if I may be so bold. That is not to say that we do not support or recognise the concerns that people have about an individual asset, but a petition has to be on national issues, and that part of this petition has been addressed. Does the committee have a view?

We are, however, working towards it being the last that does so.

The Scottish Government will not make a decision about an NTS property. Therefore, when we write to it, we could write about the petitioner’s view on the importance of gardens. That is not about what we think of that specific asset. I am open to the committee members’ decision, but I want us to be clear about not misrepresenting to the petitioner—or to anyone else—what the committee can do in that regard, while recognising the petitioner’s rights to campaign in the way that he thinks is appropriate to save a specific asset in his community.

Let me be clear: the Government will not direct the NTS to keep anything open or to close anything. We cannot deal with a specific aspect of a particular decision, and the petition does not ask us to do that.

If we were to agree to keep the petition open, all we would do is write to the Government highlighting the conclusions and recommendations of the DCMS Committee’s report. That would not make any difference to an individual decision. It might do, but it will not address the fundamental point that people want to keep those gardens open. I do not have a view on that. It is entirely in their right to campaign for that. That is not what the petition asks for.

I am trying not to get bogged down in the detail of it. I am trying to be honest with the petitioner about what is in the committee’s capacity to do. I do not want the petitioner to think that the committee writing to the Government would have any impact on an individual decision by NTS on a particular property.

I will ask Jackie Baillie to make one final contribution and then we will have a quick canter around the committee to see what we decide.

Thank you, convener. I encourage you to write to the Scottish Government in the terms that you have suggested, because the national tourism strategy does not take enough account of the importance of gardens to the tourism offer. If it did, that could inform the actions of the National Trust for Scotland. From a constituency viewpoint, I appreciate that the committee cannot get involved in individual decisions and that the strategy is a matter for the Scottish Government, but, if that happens, it will shine a slightly brighter light on the future.

The question is not whether we think that Geilston garden should stay open. We have to be mindful of the best use of the committee’s time.

The reassurance that the petition sought has been given. What has prompted the petition remains an open question, and as a committee we have to decide whether we would make any difference in that regard. I am interested in members’ views on the compromise position that Gail Ross suggested: that we close the petition but write to the Scottish Government to highlight the DCMS Committee’s recommendations. That would at least afford the petitioner, whose concern relates specifically to Geilston garden, the chance to have a conversation with the Government about the proposals or the report.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from submitting a petition on those issues if they wish to do so. I am keen that the committee is not divided on the petition, so I am trying to get some sense of where we want to go. Gail Ross suggested that we close the petition on the basis that what it has asked for has been agreed but that we would want the Government to reflect on the issues that have been flagged up during our consideration of the petition—in particular, the recommendations on garden design in the DCMS Committee’s report. We are very much aware that the petition has been prompted by a specific issue to do with gardens. I wonder whether the committee can agree on that course of action.

We cannot keep it open on the basis that we are concerned about a specific asset.

It is very unusual for the Public Petitions Committee to divide in this way. I am concerned that we would be keeping open a petition in order to do something that the petition does not ask for.

Given the broader issues that have been highlighted, we could refer the petition to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee.

We could say that, although the issue that the petition raises has been addressed, questions have arisen with regard to the whole area of tourism and how we understand such assets. The Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee will not be able to deal with the specifics of a particular site, but, if we want it to reflect on the broader question, it could do so.

Is that agreed?

I think that we have reached an agreement. However, I underline that, although we are agreeing to refer the petition to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee because we have been persuaded that there is an issue here, we are not, as custodians of the Public Petitions Committee, the only committee that is dealing with a broad range of issues in Scottish public life.

We have to be mindful that we do not spend too long on any one petition just because there are interesting things in it, as there is a queue of people waiting to have their petitions addressed by the committee. We have to ration the amount of time that we spend on each individual petition, or we must ration by having a queue. We have to reflect on that.

We would not want the importance of any individual petition to be the only criterion by which we decide whether we hold on to it. We need to emphasise that aspect time and again. Petitioners sometimes think that, if we are not looking at an issue, it is not being looked at, but the whole Parliament has responsibility and accountability in that regard. I also underline that we cannot guarantee that, in referring the petition to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, that committee will prioritise the issues that it raises. We can simply flag up the petition to that committee and say that we think that it raises some important issues for it to consider. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have reached the end of a substantial agenda.

Meeting closed at 10:38.