Rural Development Committee, 11 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Official Report 154KB pdf

---

National Trust for Scotland (Glencoe)

Agenda item 4 is consideration of petition PE227, which has been circulated to members. The petition concerns the impact of the National Trust for Scotland's proposals for Glencoe. At this stage, the Public Petitions Committee has not formally referred the petition to us as it is aware of our current work load. It has asked us to indicate whether we would consider holding an inquiry into the role of the National Trust for Scotland as a major landowner in the Highlands and Islands. The paper that the clerks have circulated outlines the options in paragraph 20. It is worth repeating that we are not being asked to consider whether we support the petitioners' case. Rather, we are being invited to make comments. I have no doubt that some members would like to comment.

We should hold a limited inquiry into the issues that the petitioners raise. I say that as the local member and as someone who has had long involvement in the case.

I attended the meeting in Glencoe of the Public Petitions Committee. I have associated myself with some of the petitioners' concerns and it might be helpful to note one in particular, which was not made explicit in the clerk's note, although I am sure that that was not a deliberate omission. The concern is that the National Trust for Scotland—NTS—and other such major landowners perhaps have greater access to funding than do smaller landowners or businesses. Various large landowners have applied for public funds and there are concerns that bodies such as the NTS—whose employees do an excellent job in places such as Glencoe—seem to have the ear of the Government agencies and perhaps enjoy preferential treatment in the receipt of public funds. Only an inquiry could discover whether such concerns are justified. That is why I think that there should be an inquiry into the issues that are raised by PE227.

I noticed that the petition was referred to the Justice 1 Committee to consider under the heading of land reform, when that committee was undertaking stage 1 consideration of the proposed land reform bill. I feel that that committee could deal with the petition, as could any committee that might be undertaking stage 1 scrutiny of the proposed land reform bill. I am also a little concerned that, after our successful away day when we decided that we were not going to do any firefighting, we now hear the noises of fire engines—as Lewis Macdonald once said. We must be careful about how reactive we are, particularly when another committee is dealing with a petition. As it has already been agreed that the Public Petitions Committee is dealing with PE227, perhaps we should leave the matter at that.

It was remiss of me not to point out that a members' briefing from the Public Petitions Committee is also attached to the briefing paper. It points out that the minister has confirmed to that committee that the

"National Trust for Scotland … is not part of Government and does not receive funding from the Scottish Executive, except possibly for specific projects in the same way as other organisations."

It is true that the Scottish Executive does not directly fund the NTS, but my point is that the NTS has applied for funding from Government agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage—SNH—and has, I believe, received funding for a woodlands grant scheme. The NTS sought a grant for a substantial sum from the local enterprise company in Glencoe. After investigation, that grant was refused. However, the NTS then made an application to SNH for a grant of about the same amount. It seems to me that the NTS's attitude was that it did not get the money from one Government agency and so it applied to another one for money for a different part of what is, essentially, one and the same scheme.

In our discussion it is not possible to get at the facts of all those matters. However, the petitioners state that their complaint

"is an increasingly common complaint arising from the growing conflict in Scotland between small rural communities and powerful bureaucratic conservation groups."

We are here to investigate issues of that nature. I do not think that that would be firefighting, because the petition has been before Parliament for a long time. I have always supported the issue that is highlighted in the petition and I believe that it must be considered in detail by the Parliament.

I sympathise with the views that Fergus Ewing has expressed, but—there is a but—I was struck by the paragraph halfway down the back page of the briefing by the Public Petitions Committee. It says:

"For the benefit of new members, it is important to note that both the Visitor Centre and the Woodland Management Scheme proposals to which the petitioners are opposed have already received the necessary permissions. There is nothing the Parliament can do to reverse these decisions."

Bearing in mind our informal discussions about firefighting and getting on with our own agenda, if the Public Petitions Committee is saying that nothing we can do will reverse the decisions, I do not see—in this case—any benefit in the committee diverting from its programme to examine those decisions. We should stick with our work programme and not pursue this issue.

I visited the visitor centre at Glencoe recently and I can see why it is overdue for replacement. Nonetheless, there are real concerns about the proposals that have been suggested.

I always draw on personal experience. When I was a child we went for many years to Achmelvich in west Sutherland, which was part of the Vestys' considerable landowning interest in the Highlands of Scotland. I was very conscious of the dead hand that a large private landowner had on the ability of the community to develop and manage the resources that rightfully should have been its own. The National Trust for Scotland is no different in that regard. If the opportunity arose for us to consider the NTS's work, we should think seriously about taking that opportunity.

I acknowledge what Rhoda Grant said and Mike Rumbles supported: we have a heavy work load in the committee and in Parliament and we must take that into account. However, I support the proposal to carry out a limited investigation.

I do not support that proposal. I agree with Mike Rumbles: it has been pointed out to us that the Parliament can do nothing to reverse the decisions, so there is not much point in having a lot of debate on them. It might be the case that the National Trust for Scotland is a major landowner in the Highlands. However, there are many others, some of whom do not even live or operate in Scotland. If we wish to examine the role of large landowners, that examination should be far wider than an examination of only the National Trust for Scotland.

I support what my colleague Mike Rumbles has said and what Elaine Murray has said. On points of principle, the future role of major landowners can be examined when we consider land reform and, further down the road, the agricultural holdings bill.

Fergus Ewing has raised some genuine concerns and I am not sure what role members of this committee will play. MSPs often try to help groups who try to access different pots of money. If at first we are rejected, we try other roads in an effort to get funds for particular projects.

We can certainly discuss one of the issues that the petition throws up—that of the future role of major landowners. However, that will come into our discussions on land reform and the agricultural holdings bill.

From what members are saying, I surmise that there is not a huge appetite for an inquiry. I accept Mike Rumbles's point. No one is suggesting that the development will not go ahead—it will. However, we should still consider the matter. The National Trust for Scotland receives hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money. When considering the proposed new centre for the NTS, we must also consider the effect on the existing businesses—restaurants and shops—that compete with the NTS. Those businesses have no access to grant assistance of any kind.

The issue of principle that George Lyon invited me to set out is whether it is fair that a large wealthy body—a quango or a charity such as the National Trust for Scotland—has almost unlimited access to the public purse, when small businesses that operate locally such as farms, shops and restaurants, have no access to any money and might be disadvantaged by the provision of a grant to a local competitor. I apologise to members if I did not set out that point clearly before. Given that that principle exists and that its general applicability might be of future concern, I wonder whether the committee might agree to the second proposal, which is to appoint reporters to examine the issues that the petition highlights.

I welcome Fergus Ewing's recognition that there is not support for an inquiry and that we could perhaps move on to the second option.

Fergus Ewing made a fair point about displacement in communities. We often hear about large bodies or landowners setting up businesses that run in conflict with the local community, but that is a planning issue. It might be worth writing to the committee that deals with planning and asking it to look at the matter. I know that the Public Petitions Committee has in the past passed on its concerns about the planning process. That committee might want an inquiry into planning procedures. There should be no displacement; somebody should not set up a business just to take away somebody else's business. That does not create inward investment or jobs in an area. That should be flagged up in any planning procedure.

I appreciate what Fergus Ewing said and I do not want to bring up another subject, but I draw a parallel with a subject that is close to my heart and that is related to displacement. A vast amount of public money has been invested in Highlands and Islands Enterprise for the funicular railway, which is about to damage ski resorts in my constituency. As far as I am concerned, that matter is much bigger than the issue on which Fergus Ewing supports an inquiry.

I do not wish to pursue the issue now; we should leave it for another time. It would divert us from our programme if we launched an inquiry, or even appointed reporters to bring the subject back to the committee. Although the issue is important, we must apply our minds to bigger issues. We need to get on with our programme.

The clerk has rightly brought to my attention the fact that the Transport and the Environment Committee has agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to seek further information on what steps might be taken to improve procedures for local consultation on planning issues. That might address the point that Rhoda Grant made.

I am not picking up a great desire from members to appoint reporters. I do not wish to do so; does any member—apart from Fergus Ewing and possibly Stewart Stevenson—disagree?

I was at one of the meetings that Fergus Ewing attended in Glencoe. The local anger that was directed towards the NTS and the feeling that there had not been enough consultation was obvious.

I agree that Glencoe needs a new visitor centre. However, other issues were raised. People felt that there had not been enough consultation on the excessive culling of deer on the National Trust's land in the area to produce a native forest.

What is your point in relation to the petition?

My point is that I agree with Rhoda Grant that there should be better consultation between local communities and big bodies that come in with proposals that will make a big change to the local community.

Everybody has had his or her say on the issue. Our reply to the Public Petitions Committee should be that we are content to note the petition and act on it in the context of other business—as stated in bullet point 3 on the summary that members have in front of them. I think that that reply reflects the view of the committee as a whole. If no members disagree with that suggestion, we will move on.