Hansard

Thank you for that introduction. My colleagues and I are humbled to share this meeting with the petitioners who went before us. Ultimately, we are talking about recreation, but I am sure that everybody here would acknowledge that the previous petitioners face some fundamental difficulties. We wish them luck in overcoming those difficulties, whatever the result of their petition.I will introduce my colleagues. We were advised not to do that but, in this case, it is relevant to do so to establish their expertise and credibility. On my left is Johnny North, who markets water sports products and has first-hand knowledge of market conditions in Scotland and the lake district. Furthermore, his family have been tenants on one of the Loch Lomond islands for more than 50 years. On my right is my father, Lawrie Lilburn, who has lived on the shores of the loch for 35 years. He has served as chair of the Buchanan community council, technical adviser on the Loch Lomond regional park byelaw advisory group, observer on the national park steering committee and secretary of the Riparian Owners of Loch Lomond; he is also a representative on the east Loch Lomond visitor management group.In addition to having started the petition, I am chairman of Fair Play Loch Lomond, which was set up to respond to the initial byelaw amendment proposals made by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, which were published last summer. Prior to that, I was an officer in the Royal Navy for 12 years. I now pilot police and air ambulance helicopters, both of which frequently operate over the majority of Scotland's waterways.Between us, we have in excess of a century of experience of recreational activity and residence around Loch Lomond, so we feel well qualified to address most of the issues that might arise. As most of you are probably aware, following a lengthy and arguably flawed process, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, is currently evaluating the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority's final proposals for amending existing byelaws on Loch Lomond before deciding which of them, if any, will be adopted and come into force. Although those proposals have been considerably amended from their initial scope, it remains our contention that they are excessive, unnecessary and ill conceived.Even if Loch Lomond is not within a committee member's constituency, the matter may well affect their constituents for two obvious reasons, as well as many others that might not be quite so apparent. First, regular visitors to the loch come from all over Scotland—and, indeed, the world—and might not take kindly to their recreation opportunities being further restricted.Secondly, the byelaw proposals arose in part out of widely voiced concerns that visitors effectively barred from Lake Windermere and other lakes in the lake district would overrun Loch Lomond and destroy its fundamental character. In fact, such fears have not been realised, but if we adopt the proposals for Loch Lomond, we run the risk of causing the same sort of problem as happened in the lake district, by displacing existing activity from a large waterway that can easily accommodate it to smaller, unregulated and wholly unsuitable lochs.In the time remaining, I cannot begin to cover every argument against adopting the current proposals, so I will confine myself to a few major items in the hope that that will stimulate discussion. Our goal today is to convince the committee that the existing byelaws, properly enforced, are wholly adequate for the time being and that they should be reviewed in three years' time. We would also, obviously, like to convince the committee to lobby the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to pay close attention to our petition, to Fair Play Loch Lomond's submission to the consultation and to the Official Report of the committee's discussion of our petition.By definition, the review process to which I referred ought to have commenced with an in-depth review of the scope, relevance and effectiveness of existing byelaws. However, any attempt to do that was at best cursory, and no specific weaknesses, deficiencies or logically evolved solutions were ever identified. Most important, the national park authority has openly admitted in writing and in verbal communication that until 2006—that is, this year—the byelaws have not been actively enforced since coming into operation, and that a policy of education has been preferred. Consequently, there is no conceivable way that any meaningful assessment of the byelaws' effectiveness could have been made. We contend that no additional restrictions should be considered or introduced until the existing ones have been properly enforced and assessed over a period of years.The initial consultation document also asked whether additional speed zoning should be introduced on Loch Lomond. Only 12 per cent of respondents said yes, but the national park authority went on to publish a proposal to double the area of the speed-restricted zones, which we feel implies an underlying agenda and which totally disregards its own consultation.Throughout the consultation process the authority has been repeatedly asked by various groups, notably sportscotland, the Riparian Owners of Loch Lomond and Fair Play Loch Lomond, to present objective, evidence-based justification for its proposals, but it has so far manifestly failed to do so. There has been no clear statement as to what specific problems exist, why the existing byelaws are inadequate to address the problems and how the proposed revisions will address them.With regard to the possible economic impact of the proposals, the initial economic impact statement predicted that 230 full-time equivalent jobs would be lost and that £10 million would be lost to the local economy. While we accept that those figures would be revised downwards in light of the recent amendments, we firmly believe that the likely economic impact remains at a wholly unacceptable level, especially in light of the Windermere situation. This assertion is supported by the fact that one of our members reports that his turnover for 2005 was 33 per cent below that of 2004; he attributes that entirely to the byelaw review proposals.In short, we firmly believe that the national park authority's proposals are in direct contravention of the fourth aim of the national park, which is to promote sustainable economic and social development in the area's communities. Conversely, there is no evidence to suggest that the other three aims of the national park would be adversely impacted by the adequate enforcement of the existing byelaws.The park authority also asserts that the proposals will help to alleviate alleged conflict between user groups. We obviously acknowledge that certain groups are dissatisfied with the current situation and even with the proposed extent of the recent amendments, arguing that motorised activity should be even further restricted. However, motorised activities do not prevent other activities from taking place on the loch, or restrict those that do. Conversely, even the existing byelaws have driven certain legitimate and long-standing recreational activities off Loch Lomond altogether and severely restricted the areas of shallow, sheltered water that are available for other sports. Adoption of the current proposals will further penalise recreational communities that have already made significant sacrifices to appease anglers and those seeking a quieter shore environment, while getting nothing in return.We also draw attention to the fact that there are 22 lochs within the national park boundary and that Loch Lomond is one of only two on which motorised activity currently takes place. There are therefore a significant number of alternative venues for those seeking absolute peace and quiet. Conversely, there is only one alternative for motorised activity participants and, being much smaller, it would quickly become congested if activities were displaced to it.We also contend that the park authorities and other groups have made a number of inaccurate assertions throughout the review process. For example, it was stated that Loch Lomond is intensively used and suffering from congestion. The fact is that boat numbers have fallen. In 1999, there were almost 1,300 boats on the loch, but by the time of the most recent official count in 2004, the figure was relatively static at around 400. That represents a drop of 66 per cent. I have submitted some pictures that were taken in the middle of a summer's day last August. You will see that the loch appears to be pretty quiet—in fact, it is almost devoid of boats.It has also been stated that the island belt and the other areas on the loch that would be covered by the proposed additional speed zones are designated as sensitive areas that include sites of special scientific interest and which require additional protection. They are designated as such because of the presence of oak trees, peat bogs and, in one case, a capercaillie colony. It is our strong contention that restricting boat speeds beyond the existing 150m limit cannot possibly offer any additional protection to oak trees and peat bogs. Senior park rangers say that motorised sports have no effect at all on island wildlife. That view is fully supported by the park authority's recent publication, "Review of Ecological Impacts of Boating and Associated Activities on Loch Lomond and its Shores", which was published in October 2005. That study shows clearly that fast motorised activity has little or no impact on wildlife on the islands.So far, I have limited the scope of my statement to concerns about additional speed restrictions. A final issue that I want to address is that of young persons in charge of powerful boats. We fully support and endorse the park authority's desire to ensure young people's safety. However, no statistical or anecdotal evidence has been presented to suggest that young people who are in charge of powered craft pose a greater danger than other loch users of different ages. In common with several other groups, we assert that competence should be the overriding factor in determining someone's suitability to be in charge of a vessel. We therefore favour a dispensation that would allow young persons who possess a suitable Royal Yachting Association certificate, or a recognised equivalent, to be in charge of a boat. Indeed, we are all deeply concerned that the introduction of a suitable competency scheme for all loch users has been deferred until the next byelaw review, at the earliest. There has been universal support for the adoption of such a scheme since the original byelaws were introduced, but little or nothing has been done in that regard. There is no excuse for that.There are issues in the Loch Lomond area and on our other waterways that need to be addressed. Litter, illegal wild camping, boater incompetence and vandalism are but a few of them. However, unlike most of the park authority's executive and board, the people before you and those who responded to our petition have lived in the park area for many years. They see it in all its guises 365 days a year. We know what the real problems are and have a good feel for what solutions might be effective. We have proposed those as alternatives in our submission to the deputy minister and we urge the committee to adopt our recommendations and to ask her to meet us to discuss the matter in more detail.