The committee will recall that we had a petition from Brian Smith calling for the inclusion of Cowal and Bute in the proposed Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Members will remember that Mr Smith gave a short presentation to the committee over lunch before our meeting on 21 January. Members questioned the petitioner after hearing his reasons for suggesting that Cowal and Bute be included in the proposed park. As the designation order has not been laid before Parliament, we do not know what the proposed boundaries will be, but there is no reason to believe that the Executive has included Cowal and Bute as the area was not mentioned in the draft designation order. The clerks' briefing paper sets out members' options on the issue. Do members have any comments on the petition?
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (PE417)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Alex Fergusson Con 12
- Mike Rumbles LD 9
- Jamie McGrigor Con 6
- Rhoda Grant Lab 3
- Richard Lochhead SNP 3
- Elaine Smith Lab 3
- Stewart Stevenson SNP 2
- Alasdair Morrison Lab 2
- Tracey Hawe Clerk 1
The record
41 contributionsWe have had several petitions about the boundaries of the proposed Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. The committee unanimously supported the Killin community's presentation, which was extremely well made and deserved our full support. That was noted and sent to the Executive by the convener. We must make a distinction between the Killin proposal, which was well backed and well founded, and the Cowal and Dunoon proposal. I noticed in the Executive's written response to the petition that its consultation surgery in Dunoon on 15 August attracted only six members of the public. The Executive's response says that the surgery"focussed on the adequacy of funding, the planning position and the inclusion of the Argyll Forest Park within the proposed National Park area. No views were expressed about the inclusion of the Cowal, Bute and Inchmarnock areas."We are now beyond the deadline for such consultation. I did not feel that the petitioners' case was well put. I am not convinced that we should move further into Argyll the boundaries of the proposed national park for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. The boundaries have moved once, to include Argyll forest park. The committee should consider petitions such as PE417 and consider the boundaries, because I am not convinced that Scottish Natural Heritage and the Executive have got them right. That is why we agreed unanimously to support the Killin community. Having compared the Killin community's presentation with the Cowal and Bute petitioner's presentation, however, I do not feel moved to support the latter's petition.
I take on board what Mike Rumbles said, but I think that the Cowal community has a good case because the coastline forms a natural boundary. The Cowal area would bring a marine element into the proposed first national park, which at the moment it lacks. At the end of the day, it comes down to money to a certain extent. I was disappointed that the funding is to be virtually halved—to £2.4 million, I think, from £4 million. There will be only so much cake to have. If the figure is smaller, that will make it more difficult for other areas to be included.I do not agree that the presentation was bad—I thought that it was good. The land brought in—especially the marine element—would add to the depth of the park.
I am not convinced that the petitioners' aims would be achieved by Cowal's inclusion in the national park. The presentation on the need for inward investment and boosts to the local economy was good, but I am not convinced that those would happen if the area were included in the national park. There are great opportunities on the national park's boundary for such investment without the restrictions that would apply in the park.We have fed the petitioners' views to the Executive—which is right and proper—but at this stage I recommend that we simply note the petition.
The issue is interesting. I know the area reasonably well and cannot think why it has less of a case to be in the national park than some other areas that are intent on being included. Perhaps the area has more of an economic case to be included in the national park, although economic criteria are by no means the only criteria that must be considered.We understand that a final decision has not been taken. If the petitioners have a case and no final decision has been taken, we should express a view, or at least seek the minister's views. The Executive's letter finishes with an innocuous line that does not give a view on anything—it simply says that the Executive is aware of the case. Perhaps we should say to the minister that we appreciate that he is aware of the case, but ask him whether he has a view.
The Executive says that it is"aware of the depth of feeling behind these views. These comments have been taken into consideration alongside other responses (some 200) received as part of the consultation exercise".Do you think that we should go further than simply noting the petition at this stage?
The minister must have a view. Perhaps we should try to find out what it is.
I want to make one tiny point. The petitioners also make the important point that the number of hostelries—bed and breakfasts and hotels, for example—in the national park is quite small. One of the main reasons for inclusion of the area would be that the number of places for people to stay when they came to the national park would be greatly increased.
Jamie McGrigor's point about accommodation is well made. The petitioners are clear that substantial commercial benefit can be gained from the area being in the national park. The committee would be unwise to take a precipitate decision not to put such arguments forward.I would hate the committee to have the statutory instrument laid before it with the Executive's explanation on why it has come to its decisions and to find itself uncomfortable about the criteria that have been applied to include some extensions that could equally have applied to the petitioners' case. If we can, we should recommend to the Executive that the area should be included.
I would like to ask the clerks for clarification. The briefing paper says that the Public Petitions Committee received the petition on 2 November 2001. Is that the first time the matter was mentioned? When did the consultation process finish? If it finished prior to the petition's being laid, why was the matter raised after the consultation process ended? It would have been better if the petition had been included in the consultation process.
I understand that the consultation process concluded at the end of August. The petition was therefore received after the end of the consultation process.
I am not questioning the issue that the petition deals with; I am questioning the fact that it was not put in as part of the consultation process.
I think that that issue was explained to us—albeit in private—when we had our away day at Gartocharn. However, Elaine Smith makes a perfectly valid point.
The clerks might correct me but, as far as I am aware, we met on 2 October to discuss petition PE393, which was submitted by the Killin community council. The Official Report of that meeting will show that we were impressed with the petition, which set out the reasons why the community should be included in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park area.I am trying to put my finger on possible reasons for the delay. I am not suggesting that anything untoward has happened, but the sequence of events is interesting. We met on 2 October and heard arguments that the Killin community should be included in the park. On 2 November—after the consultation period had closed and we had recommended that the Killin community be included in the park—the Public Petitions Committee received petition PE417. I note that the Public Petitions Committee tells us that the petition was signed by 629 people. I am keen that we listen to local communities because the Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage might not get the boundaries right—in some cases, they definitely have not. The job of this committee is to weigh up the evidence that we receive and consider the balance of evidence and public feeling. One of the major criteria is community support. I would like to know what proportion of the total population of the Cowal peninsula the 629 signatories make up. I suspect that the community feeling is not that great, especially as we were told previously that only six people turned up to a meeting on the subject. The question is weighty.
Elaine Smith's procedural point was correct. The consultation process was publicised and the closing date was clearly identified. The petition has come in after that date. However, we operate inside the system and are familiar with the way in which it works. Many of the people who deal with the Parliament, the Public Petitions Committee and the consultation processes are adept and timely in their responses. The general public, on the other hand, generally become aware of issues such as this one only when its profile has been raised by other activities. If there is an opportunity to consider a point of view because the decision has yet to be finalised, we do not, in practical terms, serve the needs of people in the broader community by rigidly adhering to rules. At the end of the day, the merits of the case should decide the matter. If a decision is made at the end of a consultation period, evidence that is submitted two days after the end of the consultation period will have missed its opportunity, but if the decision will not be made for a long time after the end of the consultation period, we should not be too strict about the rules. The ordinary public would not understand a decision that a submission had no merit because it had missed a deadline. Mike Rumbles's point about whether the petition reflects the broad feeling in the community is a better point. I too would like to know the answer to that.
It is important to discuss the issues before making a final decision, so I thank you for allowing me to speak again, convener.I accept what Stewart Stevenson said, but the problem with his view is where to draw the line. If we were to get another petition next week, before the decision had been made, would we have to consider it? We have to say that the end of a consultation process is the cut-off point for submissions. If a consultation process is not long enough or has not been advertised properly, a post mortem of the process can be conducted.I feel quite strongly that the process was correct. I am concerned that we would be doing nobody any favours if, as the clerk's paper suggests, we recommended that Parliament reject the order. That would not be in Scotland's interests or in the interests of the national park. Given that Ross Finnie knows the strength of feeling on the matter and knows that the petition exists, I feel that we should just note the petition and move on.
I will make a compromise proposal, which is that the committee send a letter to the minister expressing sympathy with the petitioners' case and asking him to gauge the level of local support for the petition before he takes his final decision because we realise that it is difficult to do anything at this late stage.
I welcome your attempt to find a compromise position; I think that we will need one. The minister may have made his decision. However, I will come back to that.
I understand the spirit of what Richard Lochhead is trying to achieve, but I worry about it because it undermines any other cases that we put about boundaries. Consideration of the Cairngorms national park is also coming up.I am considering the evidence that has been presented to us and the case for inclusion. I am not automatically considering the process. I am not convinced. I did not sympathise with the case that was put to us about extending the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park to the Cowal peninsula and Dunoon. At the informal meeting that we had over lunch when we met in the area, someone on the committee asked the petitioners what level of support they had. I did not ask that question. They were asked what the level of support was among community councils, local councillors, Argyll and Bute Council, local MSPs and regional list MSPs. I have been trying to gauge the level of support for the petition. I cannot find any, other than the 629 names on the petition and the fact that six people turned up to the meeting.We cannot say that we are sympathetic to the case that was made. I was not impressed with it. What happens with the Cairngorm national park when the community makes a really important case? I am trying to work out the implications for the future.
On the petitioners' case, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the inclusion of the Cowal peninsula but not so much with the inclusion of Bute. I could understand the logic of having a road boundary around the national park. That is my personal opinion.I also understand that there is a process whereby the Executive can revisit the boundaries of the national park after a certain amount of time following the park's establishment. Would the committee therefore be prepared to take roughly the route to which Richard Lochhead referred: to note the petition and write to the minister expressing a degree of sympathy with it but note that he is aware of its contents and the strength of feeling that is behind it?
I am worried about the sympathy element.
For the second time today, I agree with you, convener.
We are establishing a worrying trend.
I am worried about the sympathy element because it gives the impression that we are in sympathy with the petition when I do not think that we necessarily are.
I suggest that we state that we are in sympathy with some of the case that was put to us.
As long as we are careful with the wording.
I certainly am in sympathy with the case. Six hundred and twenty nine signatures is a big lot in such a sparsely populated area.
How many people live there, Jamie?
There you have me.
You are a regional list member for that area: come on.
Now, now.
The number of signatures is certainly large for a petition from that area.
The fact is that Mike Rumbles does not support the use of the word sympathy and Jamie McGrigor supports it strongly. I suggest that we say, "We express some sympathy with some of the case that was put forward." The Executive has not said that the area is not included. We cannot therefore say that it is not included.
I suggest that we do nothing. By saying that we have some sympathy with the petition, we could damn it with faint praise. Saying to the minister that we are giving him the petition to consider but that we are not awfully sure about it might have a negative effect. We have already passed the petition to the minister and he has given us feedback. The minister is aware of the issues and he will probably have carried out some work to investigate whether they can be met. That is why I suggest we note the petition. It is not that I do not understand where folk such as Jamie McGrigor are coming from, but by saying that we have sympathy with the petition we could have the opposite effect to what some members of the committee want.
Would you care to propose another form of wording?
I propose that we note the petition because we have already forwarded it to the minister.
I support that.
I support that, too.
I would not like the committee to be split over the issue. Rhoda Grant's point is fair. We have already sent the petition to the minister and asked him to note the feelings behind it. He has responded to that request. Noting the petition is an honourable position for the committee to take. Is Jamie McGrigor happy with that?
Yes.
Thank you. In that case, we will move on, but before we do, I congratulate the petitioners on their doggedness in pursuing their aims. Mr Smith is here today and I hope that he will understand the committee's position, which is taken in the knowledge that the matter can be referred to in the future, should there be a need for alteration of the national park boundaries. I wish Mr Smith every success in his campaign.
In this meeting
Everything on 12 Feb 2002 →- Scottish Parliament Rural Development Committee Tuesday 12 February 2002 (Afternoon) Committee business · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 1
- Petitions Petitions · 118
- Petitions Petitions · 41
- Foot-and-mouth Disease Committee business · 21
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 3
- Sea Cage Fish Farming Committee business · 11
- Work Programme Procedure · 53
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.