Our next petition is PE805, on the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. The petition is by Ian Watson and Peter Brucelow and it calls on the Scottish Parliament"to urge the Scottish Executive to urgently review the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and in particular the performance of each national park authority in meeting the four aims of a national park as defined in the Bill."The petitioners have particular concerns about the proposals by Scottish Water to lease the trout fishing on Loch Katrine and Loch Arklet to a private company because they believe that that will compromise the safety and quality of the water and lead to the exploitation of the surrounding area.The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 created the framework for a new land management designation in Scotland. National parks have been established in the Cairngorms and in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, which is where Loch Katrine and Loch Arklet are located. National park authorities have been established to manage the parks and they are responsible for preparing and implementing a statutory park plan and for managing the park area in relation to the park's aims. The performance of each NPA is overseen by the Executive and Audit Scotland.Jamie McGrigor has an interest in the matter and he has joined us. I invite him to comment before the committee considers the issue.
Official Report · Committee
New Petitions
National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE805)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 11
- Rosie Kane SSP 7
- Jamie McGrigor Con 6
- Sandra White SNP 4
- Jackie Baillie Lab 2
- John Farquhar Munro LD 2
- John Scott Con 2
The record
34 contributionsI start by declaring an interest, in that I am still chairman of the Loch Awe Improvement Association, which manages the protection order on 80 miles of trout fishing in Argyll, on Loch Awe and Loch Avich. My interest in the petition relates to the element on trout fishing on Loch Katrine and Loch Arklet. The original petition argued that, after Scottish Water took over the management of Loch Katrine, there was a downgrade, with the facilities that were there before being ignored. The petitioners say that what had been managed as a considerable asset is not being properly managed by Scottish Water; in other words, what was done well by the water board is now being done badly by Scottish Water. That is a bad thing, because an asset of the national park is being downgraded. Wild trout fishing in Scotland is particularly important and it should be protected for the future. The fact that the petition has been extended to include Loch Lomond perhaps slightly dilutes the original petition, which was about trout fishing on Loch Katrine and Loch Arklet.
For members' information, the initial petition that was presented to the Parliament was inadmissible and the wording had to be changed to ensure that the committee could consider it. The original petition asked the Parliament to take action that it could not take. What Jamie McGrigor refers to as the original petition is not what we are discussing today, which could not be considered by the committee without being amended.
I agree with certain elements of the amended petition, in relation to matters such as personal watercraft and jet-skis, which are not compatible with what I would call the main aim of a national park, which is to be a peaceful, scenic and wild area. It is difficult to ensure that it is kept in that state if you are going to have the roar of jet-skis echoing all over the loch.
I believe that Rosie Kane wanted to comment.
I do, if the committee will allow me to. Ian Watson and Peter Brucelow are in the gallery and they have asked me to read out a wee statement from them, which I shall then distribute to members of the committee. They start with the question, "Why do we need national parks?" They say:"By far the most important reason for designating part of our country a National Park is to protect an area famous for its beauty, spectacular scenery and unique environment for future generations. The National Park Authority must therefore be organised to be able to resist commercial forces and the rich and powerful who will want to use these areas as a playground for their own selfish recreations."I do not think that that is Jamie McGrigor, is it? I am sorry, Jamie. They continue:"It is specially important to create a National Park if there are powerful forces who would try to exploit our natural heritage for profit, and by so doing destroy our unique assets.Because Local Authorities have now a vested interest in increasing their income by allowing housing and other developments, they can no longer be trusted to defend our green belts and spectacular scenery as they did in the past. Properly constructed National Park Authorities with help from the Scottish Executive and SEPA, can meet the four aims of a National Park without destroying our natural heritage. The National Parks (Scotland) Bill, ratified on 5th July 2000, is as follows :-1. to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area2. to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area3. to promote understanding and enjoyment … of the area4. to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities."I know that we have time issues today, and the statement does go on, but I think that members would do well to read it. Both Ian Watson and Peter Brucelow give reasonable, interesting and creative suggestions on the second page of the document. They finish by saying:"Future generations have a right to be able to enjoy the magnificent and unique scenery and the glorious environments of our National Parks. They will be denied this legacy if our conservation minded MSPs do not make a determined effort to lay the foundations of a National Park organization which is capable of defeating relentless commercial forces and the rich and powerful who have selfish recreations which are inherently anti social and dangerous."The final page of the document contains details of the sale of a home in Ardlui, offered at prices from £100,000. I will not be buying it, but the advertisement states that it is"a versatile second home on the bonny banks with private jetty, adaptable accommodation, great on site local facilities and outstanding aspects south."The gentlemen asked me to read that out and I was happy to do so. Jamie McGrigor mentioned jet-skis and other small aeroplane-type things landing on the loch and causing havoc. In light of the forthcoming European Union ambient noise directive, I believe that this is a perfect opportunity for the Parliament to take the lead and to do everything that it can in consideration of the petition by Ian Watson and Peter Brucelow.
link
I would encourage anybody to move into Ardlui. It is in my constituency and it is beautiful, and I would recommend their constituency MSP to them. That said, I think that we are in danger of conflating an issue that was particularly about Scottish Water with an issue about national parks. Although I acknowledge the difficulty of framing an admissible petition, we may be in danger of moving away from one of the main points. I understand that the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority is due to publish a national park plan soon, which has been the subject of consultation. As we speak, consultation has been launched on byelaws governing the use of seaplanes, jet-skis and speedboats, to do exactly what the petitioners are looking for—to ensure that we get an appropriate balance between conservation and enjoyment of the loch. People in my constituency and elsewhere have expressed concerns that such byelaws have not been introduced quickly enough, but I am encouraged that the process is in place.I do not want to curtail debate, but my inclination is that we should first write to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority to ask what actions it is taking and the timetable for them. The park authority's answer will be instructive. Our way into the issue could perhaps be to use as an example the concerns that have been expressed about the maintenance of fishing rights in the bit of Loch Katrine that seems to have prompted the petition. We should then wait until we receive a response from the park authority before we consider what other action we should take.
Mr McGrigor said that the lochs have not been as well managed since they were transferred from the jurisdiction of the water board to that of Scottish Water. What differences have been seen?
From what I can gather, the water board ensured that the boats were kept in good condition, the toilets were kept clean and certain rules pertaining to fishing were enforced. However, the toilets are now not clean, the boats are in a bad state and there is a free-for-all in fishing methods.
I also seek clarification on the views of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, which is the governing body for most activities within the geographic area of the park. Is the board of the park authority happy about the proposal to lease activities on Loch Katrine to a third party or do we not know its views?
What worries me about the make-up of the park board is that few of its members appear to have any conservation experience. I am not even aware that it has an officer with responsibility for fisheries within the authority. Given the number of fishing lochs in the park area, fisheries should be a number 1 concern, but that does not appear to be the case. From that point of view, it is a good thing that the petition was lodged.
For the committee's information, the park authority's board has 25 members, of which 20 were appointed by the Executive or local government; only four have a background in conservation.
I think that Jamie McGrigor has answered my question on Scottish Water. I worry when things like that can just be hived off to a third party. What legislation do we have on that? Can we write to Scottish Water about that? Was it part and parcel of Scottish Water taking over the loch that it would be able to hive things off in that way?
From what I can gather, the previous water board felt a responsibility towards the fishery, but Scottish Water does not appear to have the same attitude. Scottish Water is quite prepared to let somebody else manage the fishery without necessarily looking after it. The water board's attitude was that it had a responsibility to protect the asset, whereas Scottish Water's attitude seems to be, "If we just hive it off to be managed, it will be up to them to manage it in their own way."
Scottish Water has contracted it out to a third party.
I think that Scottish Water has abdicated responsibility for protection of the asset.
Thank you for that clarification.
Jackie Baillie's suggestion that we write to the authority to ask it for its view is a good starting point that might raise other issues. We will await a response before deciding whether it is necessary to take things further.
We should also contact the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Environment LINK and its member organisations to ask them for their views. We have heard the word "moratorium" already today, but it would be nice if there could be a moratorium on all development until we hear back from them.
The national park authority has responsibility for that. Its response will tell us its views, but I do not think that we can call for a moratorium. We will have to wait for its reply. At the moment, we do not have a great deal of information. We will have to find out more before we can consider other aspects.
To whom are we writing? Are we writing only to the national park authority? Scottish Water has been roundly castigated and it is only fair that we give it an opportunity to reply. Scottish Natural Heritage may be able to offer a balanced view on the issue. It may well take an overview that others with vested interests would not. Could we write to Scottish Water and SNH as well?
I do not think that there would be a problem with that in the longer term, but I go back to Jackie Baillie's point: unless we contact the national park authority, we will not know what issues we will have to consider. It may well be that we will eventually have to write to Scottish Water. However, if the NPA can give us more information, that will allow us to take more considered decisions and then ask more pertinent questions of Scottish Water. That would be better than taking a scatter-gun approach and thinking of all the people we can write to.
I am not going to go to the wire on this one.
Will we write to the Executive?
link
I share Jamie McGrigor's frustration. The initial issue was to do with Scottish Water and the leasing of trout fishing. The discussion has since expanded into wider issues. It may be that the petitioners would like us to explore those issues but we might end up going off at tangents to do so. However, the petitioners' starting point was very localised.I suggest that we write to the national park authority to get an overview of what it is doing to protect the environment and our heritage. In the letter, we should also ask the authority whether it has concerns about the leasing of trout fishing being punted by Scottish Water. With that information, we can consider who to contact next.Writing to the authority is really a starting point, after which we will be able to home in and focus on the issues that are the subject of the petition.
That was the point that I was trying to make. We have been discussing this petition, but do not yet know the real issues that we will have to address. Unless we choose a starting point, we will be adopting a scatter-gun approach.
I agreed with John Scott and I agree entirely with Jackie Baillie. However, the starting point was Scottish Water and the fishing. We seem to have lost that.
Depending on the response from the national park authority, we will be able to determine which organisations we have questions for. We will then be able to get a wider perspective on the consequences of Scottish Water's actions.Do members agree that we should write to the NPA to give us a base on which to hold further discussions?
The issue is also about conservation, is it not? I know that I do not fully understand the procedure, but I am not quite sure why we are not writing to more authorities and organisations at this point.
Because we do not actually know what it is that we want to ask about.
We are talking about conservation, about the environment and about mismanagement. We are talking about a body that has been appointed partly by the Executive.
The petition calls for a review of the bill in relation to what the NPA does. We therefore need to find out what the NPA is actually doing. What it is doing will have an impact on conservation, but we have to have a starting point. Otherwise, we would be asking people to comment when we do not know what is being affected. Until we know what is being affected, we cannot ask the pertinent questions.I am not saying that we will not take up the issue with environmental organisations in the long run, but we will not know what to ask them until we get a reply from the NPA.
Okay.
We will write to the NPA and await its response before taking the issue further.Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 2 Feb 2005 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 2 February 2005 Petitions · 1
- Items in Private Procedure · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 69
- New Petitions Petitions · 53
- New Petitions Petitions · 69
- New Petitions Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 34
- New Petitions Petitions · 9
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.