Parliament Workbench
Data: Official Report to 12 Nov 2026

Official Report · Committee

Current Petitions

National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE805)

Thursday 8 September 2005 Public Petitions Committee Petitions 8 contributions · 4 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

8 contributions
Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Hamilton North and Bellshill
link

PE805, which was submitted by Ian Watson and Peter Brucelow, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct an urgent review of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and, in particular, to assess the performance of each national park authority in meeting the four aims of a national park as defined in the act.At its meeting on 2 February 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. A response has been received and circulated. Do members have any views on the matter?

Jamie McGrigor Con Highlands and Islands
link

In the petition, the petitioners asked that an MSP speak on their behalf; I have only just received a letter about that. Would it be all right for me to make a short statement?

Jamie McGrigor Con Highlands and Islands
link

The petitioners are worried that the brown trout fishings in Loch Arklet and the surrounding lochs, which are an important asset of the park, are not being managed in the way in which they were managed when they were in the hands of the water board. They consider that the national park authority should appoint someone to look after the brown trout fishings in the area. They also consider that the use of jet-skis, speedboats and other personal watercraft goes against the aim of keeping a tranquil area within the park and seek that such use be controlled to some extent.On the fisheries side, I agree that there should be someone on the board of the park authority who at least understands the fisheries in the area, which are an important asset. That is all that I have to say.

Sandra White SNP Glasgow
link

I have just a few observations. It is important to get the petitioners' reaction to the response that we have received from the national park authority, especially what it says about fishery management. The authority says that it is "not overly concerned" about who carries out that management and I would like to find out the petitioners' views on that. In addition, I point out to whoever typed up the briefing that "Lock Katrine" should be "Loch Katrine".

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Hamilton North and Bellshill
link

Well spotted. We will write back to the petitioners to seek their views and will discuss the petition further when we have received a reply from them.Sylvia Jackson has an interest in the petition.

Dr Sylvia Jackson Lab Stirling
link

I will speak as the constituency member for Stirling because Loch Katrine comes within my area.I have been involved in numerous discussions about Loch Katrine involving the community, Scottish Water, the national park authority and various other concerns. The aim of those discussions was to implement an integrated management plan for the Loch Katrine area. Most members will be aware that our chief aim was to save the Sir Walter Scott, but that was not the only part of the plan. As the letter that the committee received from the convener of the national park authority suggests, that plan and the Loch Katrine trust that has been set up will be concerned with the issues that Jamie McGrigor and, of course, the petitioners are worried about.As I think Sandra White said, it would be good to obtain reassurance that the necessary expertise will be available, not only in the national park authority, which has just produced a park plan for consultation, but in the new Loch Katrine trust, if it takes over responsibility for fishery management.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Hamilton North and Bellshill
link

We will get the petitioners' views about the responses that we have received and will discuss the issue again.

In this meeting

Everything on 8 Sep 2005 →
  1. Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Thursday 8 September 2005 Petitions · 1
  2. New Petitions Petitions · 77
  3. New Petitions Petitions · 33
  4. New Petitions Petitions · 41
  5. New Petitions Petitions · 6
  6. New Petitions Petitions · 12
  7. New Petitions Petitions · 6
  8. Current Petitions Petitions · 15
  9. Current Petitions Petitions · 4
  10. Current Petitions Petitions · 8
  11. Current Petitions Petitions · 8
  12. Current Petitions Petitions · 6
  13. Current Petitions Petitions · 1
  14. Current Petitions Petitions · 12
  15. Current Petitions Petitions · 5
  16. Current Petitions Petitions · 26
  17. Public Petitions Committee Event Petitions · 9

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.