Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
New Petitions
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2019 of the Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from the convener, Johann Lamont, so I will convene today’s meeting in her absence. We have also received apologies from David Torrance.
We have two items on our agenda this morning: consideration of two new petitions, followed by consideration of seven continued petitions.
Natural Flood Alleviation Strategy (PE1720)
The first new petition before us today is PE1720, which was lodged by Les Wallace. It calls for the development of a natural flood alleviation strategy for Scotland under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009.
The note that was prepared for the committee by the Scottish Parliament information centre and the clerks provides an overview of the current position in the context of the 2009 act. It provides a definition of “natural flood management” as set out in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s natural flood management handbook, and it refers to the natural flood management network, which was developed in partnership by the Scottish Government, SEPA and the James Hutton Institute.
The petition refers to the role that beavers might play in flood risk management, which is discussed in paragraphs 10 to 14 of the paper by SPICe and the clerks. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the note outline Scottish Government action, including its climate change plan, as well as the Government’s support for the development of natural flood management approaches, such as the Eddleston Water project and the European Union Interreg building with nature project. The note also refers to the recent assessment by the Committee on Climate Change, which states that there remain
“key data and evidence gaps that make it difficult to assess progress for a number of priorities”
for flooding and flood risk management. The remainder of the note outlines previous parliamentary questions and answers on the matter.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The petition has received a significant number of signatories. That is encouraging, particularly given our aims and goals on climate change. I was unaware of the natural flood management techniques that are available, which include hydrological and morphological procedures. The issue is important and the petitioner makes a good point that a collaborative approach is required, which must include the use as a defence of the traditional styles of engineering that we use to guard against flood risks.
I was also interested to note that the usual suspects—SEPA, the James Hutton Institute and the Scottish Government—have 100 natural flood management actions. It is really great that they are looking at the issue. We must develop a natural flood alleviation strategy if we are to reach our climate change goals. It is important to note that the CCC has mentioned that flooding mapping is extremely important and that there are gaps, as the deputy convener mentioned. I would like to find out a bit more from the organisations that are involved in the 100 actions.
Brian, do you have any comments?
It is a really interesting petition. The extra dynamic is the reintroduction of beavers into the ecosystem and the impact that the dam building that they do could have downstream, including on farming. We know that there is a bit of contention around that. In the first instance, it would be interesting to seek the Scottish Government’s views on the action that the petitioner is calling for.
Perhaps I should declare that the petitioner is one of my constituents.
Do members agree that, in the first instance, we should write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the action that is called for and to invite it to respond specifically on the gaps in the data and the evidence? As Brian Whittle has suggested, there are challenges with regard to areas of land such as farms. Therefore, do members agree that, in addition to contacting key stakeholders such as SEPA, Scottish Natural Heritage and the James Hutton Institute, it might be an idea to contact NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates to seek their views, too?
Members indicated agreement.
Perhaps we could get in touch with Fisheries Management Scotland as well, because fisheries management is part of the conversation. In England, a lot of work is being done on the catchment management approach. Last Sunday’s edition of “Countryfile” or “Landward” featured the River Itchen; it was a very interesting programme. The fisheries management approach is one that is going to guide us.
Yes, indeed. We will ask the clerks to take that forward.
National Tourism Strategy (PE1721)
PE1721 is on the national tourism strategy for Scotland and the role of the National Trust for Scotland in that. The petition was lodged by John Hanks on behalf of Friends of Geilston. It calls on the Scottish Government to meet the NTS to discuss the role that it can play in the context of the national tourism strategy, and it asks that the future of any trust property that is under threat of closure be included in any such discussion.
The note that was prepared by SPICe and the clerks provides a brief summary of the roles and remits of different parties and stakeholders, including the Scottish Government, the tourism industry and the NTS. Paragraph 9 of the note says that an updated tourism strategy is being developed by the Scottish Tourism Alliance. The strategy steering group that has been set up to deliver that updated strategy does not include the trust. The petition is an example of one that is set in the national context but which stems from a local experience.
This morning, we are joined by Jackie Baillie and Maurice Corry, who both have an interest in the petition. Before we go to members of the committee, it would be helpful if Ms Baillie and Mr Corry could provide some context to assist us with our consideration of the petition.
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.
Thank you, Ms Baillie. Mr Corry, do you have anything to add?
09:45
I entirely endorse what Jackie Baillie has just said and agree that this is a cross-party matter. Indeed, we, along with Friends of Geilston, have worked closely on this from the beginning.
This is a very important issue, because Geilston is quite a unique property. It has a lot of connections with the shipbuilding and shipping industry on the River Clyde—it brings a lot of that together. Furthermore, there is a double whammy here; people come to the area because of the Hill house, which has just had and will continue to have a massive amount invested in it, and Geilston is right on the footpath to it. It would be crazy for the NTS to consider its closure at all.
Perhaps at this point I should declare that I was a member of the NTS when this issue first came up. My membership has, I think, been slightly delayed at the moment—but never mind. I am certainly very supportive of it.
The gardens are very important. As a young lad born and brought up in the area, I knew Miss Hendry and Miss Bell who lived there, and from knowing them quite well, I know that it would have been Miss Hendry’s wish not to have seen her money go into a central pot. I think that it is very sad that that has happened, and the decision should really should be reconsidered at NTS headquarters. The money should be purely for investment in the house and garden itself.
I pay tribute to Friends of Geilston, which has done a fantastic job in highlighting the issues at Geilston house. If you go there, you will see the number of people who come to it. It is quite incredible. There is an active and working kitchen garden that sells produce to people in the area; in fact, I buy produce from it for my Sunday lunch. It is great—and I recommend the parsnips. Moreover, as Jackie Baillie has said, Geilston is in the top 100 UK gardens, which is pretty good, and I think that that ought to be borne in mind when you look at this petition.
I understand from conversations with the NTS chairman that various considerations are being undertaken across the whole of Scotland, but I am very concerned that the NTS is taking a heavy-hammer approach to Geilston. I just do not think that it is listening to the details that have been set out in Friends of Geilston’s reports, on which I know a tremendous effort has been made.
What are the future options? Friends of Geilston has put options on the table, and I implore the NTS to talk to them and look at what they are suggesting. To be fair to the NTS, I know that it has asked questions, and obviously it is keen for some form of collaborative community group to come forward. I should say, with my armed forces and veterans hat on, that I have looked at the possibility of the house being involved in providing some housing for veterans. There are a lot of options, but the NTS’s heavy-hammer approach at the moment is beyond the pale. I think the committee needs to take a real look at the situation and carry out an in-depth study, because there is lots of information available, and work on the various options for the house is being led by John Hanks and other members of Friends of Geilston.
The other thing that you will notice when you drive into the gardens is that there are a lot of children and young people there. It is a great place. As Jackie Baillie knows, there is a young people’s play area, and that sort of thing is encouraged. It also has lots of open days and various other events—in fact, I think that “Macbeth” was staged in the gardens the other day. The walled garden would be a beautiful setting for it.
When you talk to people just wandering around, as I have done many times, you find that they come from a long way away, not just from local areas. Again, I commend to the committee a visit to the gardens—we would be more than happy to host you there. You can get a very good cup of coffee, and you could, if you like, buy some very nice parsnips and vegetables and contribute to the wellbeing of the gardens.
It would be a great sadness if the house were to be closed. It would also be extremely foolish, because, as I have said, it is so close to the Hill house that people can get a good bang for their buck by being able to visit two places. I would very much recommend that it be kept going, particularly the gardens, which stand out.
Thank you for listening to us.
Thank you. I am sure that the petitioners appreciate the various plugs for coffee and parsnips.
I am not sure whether the figure that was transferred from the endowment is public knowledge. Can you give us any indication of how much was involved?
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.
The original figure was £800,000. However, that has now climbed into the millions, because it has increased over time. It was not an insubstantial amount, convener.
It seems fairly substantial. Do committee members have any views?
I do not know whether I read it wrong, convener, but I am sure that I saw a figure of £2.5 million.
That might be right.
Yes.
Our papers refer to
“a legacy from the previous owner ... which is now worth in the region of £2.5 million.”
I, too, thank the members for their plugs—the place sounds amazing. I am not sure whether Maurice Corry is on commission with regard to the parsnips.
From what you have said, the place is clearly valuable to local people and members, but I want to direct a couple of questions to those people. Why is Friends of Geilston not keen for the gardens to be run by a community trust? It seems from what you have said, Ms Baillie, that you have not seen the report in question, and that is why you are encouraging us to get a copy of it from the NTS. It is very difficult to know what the operating costs are and if that is indeed what is putting Friends of Geilston off running the trust itself.
My other, more general comment relates to what I think is an important point by the petitioner about the need to identify the NTS’s role within the national tourism strategy. If it is not part of the STA, it is very difficult to work that out. Clearly, as an independent charity, it will feel that what is in its best interests is to increase the number of members and footfall in properties and safeguard its properties. There are two different things to consider here: first, how we involve the NTS in the tourism strategy and secondly, why Friends of Geilston is being put off the idea of having a community trust.
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.
If the £2.5 million legacy was put back into the NTS’s general fund, as you said, is there no rule that safeguards that? Even if there is not, why was that money not used to safeguard the Geilston property?
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.
May I clarify a point? When I referred to £800,000, that was the original figure from way back. Obviously, it has grown since then with shrewd investment. When Miss Hendry died, the will was made in such a way that the transfer of funds could be made to the NTS headquarters account, but what was agreed—after much negotiation with the Friends of Geilston—was that the interest on that capital sum would be allocated to Geilston house for the maintenance of the gardens and general repair of the roof, which had been redone. There was an element of income that came towards the Friends of Geilston, but the capital sum did not.
There is a legal issue around why that is still in place; I am not sure of the specific term, but the will is a legacy will, which means that it can be used across the NTS properties generally, so there is a legal argument about that. The Friends of Geilston have managed to win the interest, which is something. Using that as an example, it has moved some way—but not far enough—towards the wishes of the Friends of Geilston. That is the point, so we can say that the NTS board has realised that there is an issue here.
Receiving the interest is certainly a help, but let us go a bit further and have the capital sum allocated purely to Geilston house. I am convinced that that is what Elizabeth Hendry wanted; clearly, she wanted to bequeath the money for Geilston and the people of Cardross.
The situation sounds similar to something that has happened in my area over a period of time. Belleisle park has been in the news again because the property there burned down. I visited Belleisle as a kid—and I have taken my own children there, too—and, given the way in which it has been allowed to deteriorate, what you are saying rings true. I have a lot of sympathy with what colleagues and the petitioners are saying.
It seems entirely reasonable to assume that the money was bequeathed specifically to maintain the property, and it strikes me that although it might not be illegal it seems slightly immoral that the NTS would take that money for other projects. I am minded to look into the petition a little deeper, convener.
Thank you—I tend to agree. I have a lot of sympathy with the petition, which seems to contain a not unreasonable ask. Clearly, the petitioners have had strong support from Jackie Baillie and Maurice Corry; it is heartening to see that cross-party local support.
Do members have any suggestions on what we should do with the petition?
10:00
We should write to the STA to ask whether there is a reason why the NTS is not included in the board or in the strategic tourism plans for Scotland. There may be a valid reason for that, but it would be good to find out. We should also write to the Scottish Government to understand the outcome—the contribution from the NTS properties and the contribution of the footfall. I think that their contribution to Scotland is very important.
Other than that, of course we need to eke out more details from the NTS on some of the points that have been made today and perhaps get a little bit more information from Geilston on the evidence that we have heard today.
Indeed. I agree. We need to seek the Scottish Government’s view of the petition, and ask for a response from the NTS; we will ask it to provide a copy of the study that Jackie Baillie referred to and to comment on the points that have been raised by the two local members.
I believe that the United Kingdom Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is doing an inquiry on the contributions of gardens to the economy; I think that that inquiry is live, so we will alert that committee to the petition that we have discussed this morning.
We also need to seek the views of the STA and Visit Scotland. As Rachael Hamilton said, the Friends of Geilston will have a chance to respond to our discussion this morning and to anything that comes back from the various bodies that have been mentioned. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you.
I thank Jackie Baillie and Maurice Corry for coming along this morning.
Thank you very much, convener, and thank you to the committee.
I, too, thank the convener and the committee.
I suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses for the next session to take their places.
10:02 Meeting suspended.10:04 On resuming—
Previous
AttendanceNext
Continued Petitions