Justice 1 Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 2, 2001

Official Report 259KB pdf

---

Petition

The next item is consideration of petition PE227 by Alistair MacDonald, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to approve an investigation into the actions of the public agencies and the National Trust for Scotland as architects of the current proposals and policies for Glencoe, and in particular to look at public consultation and the future role of the National Trust for Scotland as a landowner. The committee is considering the petition in relation to the proposed land reform bill.

Given that Fergus Ewing, the local MSP, and the petitioners are here, will we have an opportunity to hear from them before we consider the matter?

I will ask one of the petitioners, Kirsty Macleod, to address the committee briefly.

Thank you. Please bear with me—I have scribbled some notes on the back of an envelope because I was not quite sure what to expect. Members have received some background notes, which explain the basis of Alistair MacDonald's petition. We were not sure what angle the Justice 1 Committee would take, but I understand that the committee's interest is that the petition would form part of its consideration of the proposed land reform bill.

Additional information has come to light and we are anxious to attach it to the petition. The information concerns certain irregularities that seem to have occurred during the planning and funding processes of both the woodland grant scheme and the proposed visitor centre at Inverrigan. We have prepared some information that raises serious questions that we hope the committee will consider alongside the land reform implications of the petition. If not, perhaps the committee could recommend where we could raise the issue of anomalies in the planning process.

On a point of order. Is it appropriate for the petitioners to submit additional information today, which means that we will consider matters that are outwith the petition?

I would like to hear what the information is before I decide whether it is germane—it might back up what is being said in the petition. It would be difficult to judge without hearing what the petitioner has to say. It seems reasonable to hear the petitioner.

Our key stumbling block is that we are told that the woodland grant scheme and the planning application have been granted consent and that there is nothing that we can do about it. However, if we look quickly at the planning application for the visitor centre, I could rattle through some of the points that are valid—

I must interrupt you at this point. The Justice 1 Committee cannot investigate specific judicial cases, even if the subject of the cases falls within our remit. However, we can look at anything that tells us about more general matters that come within the remit of the committee. As the Justice 1 Committee will look at the land reform bill, the Public Petitions Committee passed petition PE227 to us to see whether any of the issues that flowed from the petition might influence our consideration of that bill. We cannot debate a particular planning application, or say that this or that was right or wrong in the process that led up to the application.

Petition PE227 has been before the Transport and the Environment Committee, which gave particular consideration to the planning issues. That committee's members said that it was not appropriate for a committee of the Scottish Parliament to act as a kind of a court of appeal in planning matters. The Transport and the Environment Committee recommended that the Justice 1 Committee look in general terms at how planning applications are dealt with. As the convener said, we cannot look into particular cases; we can talk only about the principles of planning applications.

I ask Kirsty Macleod to construct her remarks bearing in mind our advice.

My final remark would be that this is no ordinary planning application. It has involved the Forestry Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage, the local authority, the Heritage Lottery Fund and various consultations with people outside Glencoe, including mountaineering clubs. The application has drawn together a number of powerful key players in the Highlands and Islands. At the core of the issues that we want to raise about the planning process is the question of funding and co-operation between those powerful organisations. The issues are not technicalities that were not followed or little mistakes that were made. The issues are major and they are all interrelated.

Okay. I thank Kirsty Macleod for her evidence. Do members of the committee want to say anything at this point? If not, I will bring in Fergus Ewing.

I am happy to appear again in support of the petitioners, Kirsty Macleod and Alistair MacDonald. As Michael Matheson said, this is a constituency matter for me. The petitioners are looking for a fair hearing. The fair hearing that they are looking for covers what has happened in Glencoe and also—as the wording of the petition recognises—the wider issues and role that wealthy voluntary bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland have as major landowners in the Highlands. Petition PE227 also relates to the power that that provides them and to the close—some would say unhealthily close—relationship between some of those wealthy voluntary bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland and RSPB Scotland.

The Justice 1 Committee or the Rural Development Committee, which might be considering the matter on 5 June, could hold an investigation into the wider issues that have been raised and could also consider the matter as a case study. The committees need not necessarily review the decision, because that might be beyond the powers of the committees. In that respect, I wait with interest to see the additional evidence that Kirsty Macleod said will be produced. No doubt that additional evidence will be considered carefully by the Justice 1 Committee and the Rural Development Committee's clerks if they are so instructed. However, I believe that there should be an inquiry into the wider issues and that this example could be used as a case study.

There are a few areas of concern. There has not been adequate consultation by the National Trust for Scotland. It claims that there has been, but I think that it has been proven that its claims are wrong. Recently, there was a report of misrepresentation by the National Trust for Scotland of comments made by the commissioner of the Canadian clan Donald, Peter Paton. Peter Paton recently issued a statement that—

We are getting into specifics now and I do not think that we should do that. We have not yet agreed to undertake a case study. The Public Petitions Committee invited this committee to consider a certain specific matter—whether we would consider the future role of the National Trust for Scotland as a landowner when we come to consider the proposed land reform bill. If Fergus Ewing wants to try to persuade us of the wisdom or otherwise of that, I will be happy to listen. However, I caution him not to try to argue the specifics of whether a particular planning decision was flawed.

On planning and on Government agencies, which were mentioned by the petitioner, the perception is that it is straightforward for wealthy voluntary bodies to obtain planning permission and grants—in this case of several hundred thousand pounds—but that there are clear double standards. Ordinary individuals and businesses in my constituency—and, I suspect, in all Scotland—find it much more difficult to obtain planning permission and financial support for projects that they wish to pursue. There is an unhealthily close relationship, which is exemplified by the fact that SNH deliberately leaked the letter from Peter Paton to the NTS without permission, and quoted from it liberally. He complained, as was reported in the Oban Times and West Highland Times. In regard to the closeness of the NTS's relationship with the SNH, I can reveal today that the National Trust for Scotland has applied for another £200,000—

On a point of order.

It is to help with an interpretation centre, which is quite outrageous—

Wait a minute, Fergus; we have a point of order.

Fergus mentions fair hearing, and we give fair hearing. That is no reason to allow that fair hearing to be abused. We are in danger of using our remit as a platform for Fergus to make whatever speech he wants to make to the press. I do not think that you should allow that, convener.

You were beginning to stray, Fergus, as I think you know.

If I stray, I apologise. It is difficult to demonstrate the concerns that exist about the general issues without referring to specifics. To answer Gordon's point, it seems to me that some of the information that the National Trust for Scotland has provided to the Parliament is plainly incorrect. Therefore, it has not—

Okay, I will stop you there. You have made the point that you wished to make about the National Trust for Scotland, other large bodies and the planning process. The planning process does not affect us: it is a matter for the Transport and the Environment Committee. Our particular interest is whether our consideration of the land reform bill will be affected.

Land use questions obviously arise with any proprietor or landed estate, whether the land is owned by charities, by private individuals or by a consortium. When we come to consider the land reform bill, there will be an opportunity to consider how landowners of any kind use the land. Systems should be put in place so that, if the land is not being properly used, communities can deal with it. However, what Fergus has been talking about is a planning issue. It was dealt with at the Transport and the Environment Committee and I do not think that we can go down the same road. We must decide whether to note the petition or say that, when we come to consider the land reform bill, we will bear in mind the fact that there could be proprietors—charities, voluntary groups or whatever—that have as much responsibility to the people who live on the land as do private owners.

I do not know whether I should declare an interest. I am not a member of the National Trust for Scotland, but it may be that my wife is. I am not sure, but I declare it just in case.

If we take away the specific detail of the application, behind it lies a wider question: that of planning applications overall and the fact that someone whose application has been turned down can appeal but those who have objected cannot appeal against a successful outcome. Many issues arise from the petition. If the petitioners have done anything, it is to have alerted the Scottish Parliament quite legitimately to wider issues that are not specific to the case of Glencoe.

I wonder whether, in order to ascertain whether there is a case here with respect to the National Trust for Scotland, it would be worth while writing to the minister to ask how many major planning applications have recently been received in Scotland, what levels—

Hang on. It is not our job to consider planning applications or even to consider the law as it relates to planning applications. One of the committees is doing that. You are right that there may be an issue relating to the land reform bill when it comes before us. Is that what you are getting at?

Not really. I accept what you are saying about the other committee, but we have just been discussing the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill. Elements of planning could affect individuals' rights under the ECHR. While it appears on the surface that we cannot contribute, because of the ECHR we perhaps should.

A number of issues come into play here. Several members have referred to the specific planning case that applies to this matter. The committee cannot look into that case. We should also keep in mind that there are current challenges to planning law, which I understand are still with the House of Lords. It may be that a revision of planning law in Scotland will happen further down the road, but that is not the remit of the committee. I should perhaps declare an interest because, as a mountaineer, I frequently use NTS land, especially in Glencoe.

There is an issue here relating to the NTS as a landowner and how it works with local communities that are affected by the way in which it manages its land. That matter could be considered in the context of the land reform bill. The Rural Development Committee will consider on 5 June whether it wants to undertake a specific inquiry on the matter. I would be inclined for this committee to allow the Rural Development Committee to consider that. Depending on the outcome, we can—in the context of the land reform bill—consider how an organisation such as the NTS operates as a major landowner in Scotland. We should not rule out our own consideration of the matter.

I do not disagree much with Michael Matheson's approach, but my instinct at this stage is that we should go little further than noting the petition. That is not because I do not want the committee to give anyone a fair hearing—I like to think that people who come before the committee think that they get a fair hearing. This is a matter of importance. It is obvious that the NTS and powerful interest bodies are getting preference. The issues that Fergus Ewing raised are matters of public interest and debate. I have no doubt that he and others will ensure that the matters are debated publicly and often. The ministers will be asked questions, and everyone will be called to account.

The difficulty is the committee's remit. If the land reform bill contains provisions that make the issues that the petition raises relevant to us, we will almost automatically consider the petition. We do not need to make a decision about that. We will consider the issues when we debate the land reform bill. If that bill contains provisions to which the petition is relevant, we will consider the petition in that context. However, given the other work that we are doing, the committee should not initiate an inquiry, whether or not the issues have anything to do with the land reform bill. The Rural Development Committee may be persuaded to or may want to do that. I have a sneaking feeling that such an inquiry might be more suited to it than us.

All that we can do is note the petition. If it is relevant to the land reform bill—as it may well turn out to be—we will ensure that those who have an interest in the subject will have an input into our considerations then.

Gordon Jackson is talking about what might be in the bill, but what might interest us is provisions that are not in the land reform bill, but could be. That is potentially a broader question.

I accept that.

I suggest that we bear the petition in mind when we consider the land reform bill. If issues appear to be appropriate to consideration of the land reform bill, we should consider them. In the meantime, the Rural Development Committee will consider other aspects of the petition and the Transport and the Environment Committee will in due course consider the application of planning law issues after the House of Lords has dealt with the European case of which Phil Gallie reminded us. Is that proposal agreed?

Members indicated agreement.