Official Report 153KB pdf
Loch Lomond and the Trossachs<br />National Park Elections (Scotland)<br />Order 2002 (draft)<br />Loch Lomond and the Trossachs<br />National Park Designation, Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Scotland) Order 2002 (draft)
I invite the minister and his helpers to come to the table. I welcome the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, and his officials, Jim Halley, Andrew Dickson, John Nicolson and Murray Sinclair. I thank them all for attending. We will deal with two affirmative statutory instruments, which relate to the formal establishment of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park—the designation order and the elections order—and two motions in the name of the minister, which invite the committee to recommend to the Parliament that the instruments be approved. I propose that we take the instruments together.
I am pleased to present the two draft orders, which are necessary to establish Scotland's first national park, covering Loch Lomond and the Trossachs.
Thank you, minister. It certainly seems quite a long time ago now since we finished our stage 2 consideration of the original National Parks (Scotland) Bill. We are pleased to see that things are now somewhat nearer the end of the tunnel.
I am delighted that the orders have come before the committee now. The establishment of the first national park is a remarkable event, and I am sure that the committee will pass the orders without any great difficulty.
I am not quite sure why. If I remember rightly, it was my vote that saw that provision through.
I am most grateful for your support, convener. It was my series of amendments that led to that provision being included, and the committee backed that move fully.
An important distinction must be drawn. The consultation was on policy as opposed to being about the draft order per se. The essential answer to your question is yes. Consultees were asked whether they would favour a proportional system or a warded system. Although the responses were fairly evenly balanced, the balance was in favour of the warded system outlined in the order.
Was there was a fairly even response?
Yes. As you might imagine, there was a balanced response as to the most appropriate electoral system to adopt, one which would best reflect the aims and aspirations of the consultees. There was a choice between a system of proportional representation, which would have a single electoral area and a different electoral method, and a warded system, which divides the park area into five wards, each of which elects one representative. The balance of the response from the consultees favoured the latter approach rather than the former, but not by much.
Did the consultation ask for preferences as to the number of members of the board who should be elected directly? If my memory serves me rightly, there has to be a minimum of 20 per cent of such members, but the proportion can be up to 50 per cent. Was that consulted on?
Yes.
What was the result of that consultation? Was it a narrow decision, or was there a unanimous vote that five members would be enough?
If I remember rightly, consultees' opinions were reasonably evenly split between five elected members and seven.
I appreciate what has been said about the boundaries of the park, but I have recently had a couple of e-mails, which have been circulated to members, concerning boundary issues. A case which has come to my attention in the past two days is that of Mrs Beveridge of Gartlea farm at Gartocharn. Her problem, which I suspect may arise in other areas on the boundary, is that her farm has been split in two by the national park boundary. I understand that that might well happen if the boundary follows a burn or a road, but it seems slightly odd in this instance, given that Mrs Beveridge's farm is also part of an environmentally sensitive area.
Before I turn to the individual issue, it is important to say at the outset that every request that was made to the Executive for a change to the boundary was considered seriously, to the extent that colleagues were out tramping the proposed boundary lines, together with the affected interest, and went over in great detail where the lines were drawn in order to accommodate as far as possible the interests of all concerned. There has been extensive consultation between officials and individuals with an interest in the drawing of those lines.
Other landholdings, perhaps large estates, may well be split. Obviously, we have tried to avoid that as much as is practically possible, but, particularly in the cases of some of the larger estates, it simply will not be possible.
It seems slightly odd to me that the boundaries of the national park—one of whose principles is to enhance the environmental interests within its area—do not follow the boundaries of a very near environmentally sensitive area, where environmental interests will also be high on the agenda. The decision in such cases seems to be slightly at odds with the geographic reality.
I certainly take your point, convener. There are other areas in the park, for example, sites of special scientific interest or national scenic areas, that we want to encompass. We tried to encompass those within the park as much as possible, but we literally had to draw the line somewhere. We had to consider what was best for the park as a whole. Those SSSIs and NSAs will still exist, whether they lie within or outwith the park boundary. I take the point, however. Ideally, we would have liked to encompass them within the park.
I think that ministers have the power to alter the boundaries in the future should a satisfactory case be given for doing so. Can I take it that the minister will keep an open mind on such issues and that, if things prove difficult as time goes by, he will revisit them?
Yes, that is the case. We will keep an open mind, subject to any review demonstrating that the factors that were in play in making the current decisions have changed. The boundary would be reviewed in accord with any such changes.
I believe that communities that have fallen just outwith the proposed boundaries have also expressed concerns about the boundaries issue. I refer particularly to Strathendrick and Strathblane. The committee has received representations from Duncan McLaren, who is the vice-chairman of Balfron community council. He said that they learned only indirectly that they were not being included within the proposed national park's boundaries.
I will certainly try, although you identified that there will always be a problem of communities feeling that they were unnecessarily included or wrongfully excluded. I can reassure you that the aspirations of those communities were fully considered by officials when they were drawing up the boundaries. Although important on heritage grounds, those areas were deemed to have different management needs and character. Endrick Water is undoubtedly a major water catchment for Loch Lomond. However, that fact did not warrant Endrick Water's inclusion in the proposed national park.
May I raise a slightly different matter, convener?
Certainly.
Perhaps I overlooked it, but I could not find in either of the Scottish statutory instruments that we have before us the answer to a thorny question. I could not see an attempt to tackle the issue of the Sandford principle in relation to what happens if there is a conflict between one or more of the four aims that have been set out in the 2000 act. The Sandford principle, as I understand it, is a principle of statutory interpretation to the effect that, in the event of a conflict, the first stated principle will be preferred. One can easily envisage a conflict arising between the environment and development.
The principle is obviously in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. I ask Andrew Dickson to give a detailed response.
The Sandford principle is enshrined in section 9(6) of that act, which states:
The issue concerned me when I read the responses to the consultation document. As did the committee, I noted response 193, from the Loch Lomond and Trossachs research group, which asked similar questions. I asked officials how we might expect the park planning committee to apply the Sandford principle in practice if that principle is not to be expressed explicitly.
I accept that there is no easy answer to the issue, but I urge the minister to consider introducing guidance in a statutory instrument. How will the park authority be guided on whether there is a conflict? For instance, would it create a conflict if two voluntary conservation bodies object to somebody who wants to build an extension on their house? There is a clearly identifiable potential problem zone. I urge the Executive to introduce an instrument that gives guidance, on which there can be a parliamentary debate.
From a procedural point of view, the guidance must be the subject of consultation with the national park authority, which is straightforward and sensible. A draft of any proposed guidance to the authority must be laid before Parliament; it cannot be finalised until 40 days have elapsed from the day on which the draft was laid. Although the guidance would not be a statutory instrument, it would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Our current thinking is that the guidance would be administrative, but, as Andrew Dickson said, it would still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which would allow the issues that Fergus Ewing raised to be addressed.
Thank you.
If the minister is considering issuing guidance, will he take into consideration the board's relationship with outside authorities? One of the concerns that was voiced when we took evidence on the bill was that areas that lie immediately outwith the park's boundaries could become stressed, depending on the activities of the park board. Therefore, it will be important to undertake a lot of consultation with authorities whose areas of responsibility immediately verge on the national park. That will ensure that they are able to plan ahead and that they are not overstressed.
If your question is about planning issues in particular, I can advise that, as you know, planning legislation for rural areas in general is under review. That review of structure planning as it affects rural areas will have an obvious impact on the rural areas that border the periphery of the proposed national park and I expect that those issues will be taken up in that review.
Will there be a liaison officer for complaints that may arise over teething troubles with the workings of the new national park?
Initially, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park will have an interim chief executive who will be the first port of call for people who have concerns about how the park authority operates. However, I am not aware of any plans to have a specific liaison officer.
Are you asking about the concerns of farmers and landowners?
No, not necessarily. Concerns could be raised by anyone. The park is new, and there could easily be complaints about the way in which things are to be organised in comparison with the way in which they were organised previously. I wondered whether there would be some form of liaison between the public and the park authority so that complaints could be addressed.
We expect the chief executive and staff to undertake, as a matter of course, the necessary liaison and consultation with the public and with affected interests, whether landowning or farming. We also expect that when the park authority is established, its composition will reflect those local interests. That is why there will be 25 persons on the authority who will be accountable in large part to the views of local people. They will be able to reflect that accountability in their deliberations.
I understand that the Scottish Executive will appoint 10 members of the authority. Is that correct?
Yes.
I was not asking a trick question, minister.
It was nearly a trick answer.
What criteria will the Scottish Executive use to select those 10 people?
We will select the most suitable candidates for the posts, based on the criteria that we will apply. Those criteria will include whether candidates are qualified to represent national and local interests.
Therefore, selection will be based on candidates' personal characteristics rather than on their membership of a voluntary organisation, for example.
We will apply the criteria in the person specification to the individual candidates and appoint those whom we consider to be most suitable for the duties imposed by membership of the national park authority.
I thank the minister for that answer. I did not think that I would get much more than that, but one tries.
The planning structure for the Cairngorm national park is a matter for separate determination, which will take place outwith the deliberations on the instruments that we are considering today. I am not sure whether the calculation has been made. I will ask Andrew Dickson to answer.
A cost will be involved in setting up the national park authority as a planning authority. Equally, a saving will be gained because the local authorities will no longer have those powers. During the time that the park authority is being set up, there will be transitional and frictional costs. However, we do not intend to put very large amounts of the money that is to go to the national park into setting up the park's administrative systems.
I am pleased to hear that, but how many people are to be employed in the planning section of the park authority?
The interim committee is discussing that at the moment, but no conclusion has yet been reached. It will be for members of the national park authority, when the authority comes into being, to take a view on what kind of administrative structures it will need. Those structures will not be put in place immediately, although a skeleton will be.
The decision on the increase in funding was informed by the requirement that would be imposed by the transfer of the planning function. The interim committee will have taken that requirement into account in making its application to us for the additional funds. It was one of the many areas that we discussed with the interim committee, and upon which we based our judgment for the increase in funds.
I appreciate that nothing has been fixed yet, except the £4.8 million. Civil servants, SNH and others must have applied fairly clear minds to the problem. Will the amount to be spent on the planning regime exceed £1 million of the £4.8 million?
I cannot recall offhand the split between the planning, education and ranger functions and the other services that the national park authority will be required to discharge. The authority has a full range of functions to perform; in addition to the planning function, that includes the park's education system, the running of the orientation centre at Balloch and other public services. All those functions go towards making up the bulk of the £4.8 million.
The park will take on planning and other public services. Given that local authority employees do those jobs at present, will those employees be transferred across to the park authority and will their conditions be retained as they do so?
We anticipate that their conditions will be the same. We are examining pension arrangements and have been in touch with the Strathclyde pension fund to ensure that the employees who transfer across can remain with that fund.
Following on from Fergus Ewing's question, I am confused about the £4.8 million. Is that new money or will some of it be clawed back from allocations to local authorities? If so, how much will be clawed back?
The national park authority is to receive £1.9 million of new money. That figure is based on the estimates that the authority submitted to us on the cost of setting up the park in its first year. Years 2 and 3 of the park's funding are yet to be determined. That will be done as part of the spending review, and informed by the running of the park in its first year. The park authority, when it is established, will consider some of the issues in greater detail as they arise.
I envisage that most of the money for running the park will come from the allocations that would have gone to the local authorities. Is that correct?
The situation is not quite as simple as that. As I am sure you know, the local authorities have a well-developed co-operative system to deal with planning and other matters in what will be the national park area through the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs interim committee. That committee is funded only to a minor extent by the local authorities. It is funded largely by grant that is paid through SNH. The cost of the functions, although they are undertaken at the moment by local authority officers, does not, by and large, fall on local authority budgets. That position will be mirrored. There is no question of clawback.
Paragraph (1) of article 5 of the draft Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Designation, Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Scotland) Order 2002 says:
Article 5(3) states:
You assure me that the authority has 25 members.
It is a rather odd way of saying that there will be 25 members.
It is a bit obscure.
It is a specific provision to ensure that 40 per cent of the members of the authority are local members.
I clarify that the remaining members are appointed under paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1 to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, which gives Scottish ministers the power to appoint the remaining members for whose appointment specific provision is not made in the designation order. That is the power in the act to which Andrew Dickson referred.
Is John Farquhar Munro happy with that?
I will take his word for it.
On that point, we will have to.
It was not a question of reducing the amount. The SNH requirement to which you refer was for the park's third year of operation. We have been successful in getting the park established more quickly than we might have anticipated. The boundaries have also been expanded and other issues have been brought to bear. We therefore needed to front-load funding to ensure that the park was adequately funded in its first year of operation and to ensure that it would get off to the best possible start. There is no contradiction: the figure from SNH was for the park as originally envisaged in its third year of operation; the new money is to ensure that it gets off to the best possible start.
Thank you.
Motions moved,
that the Rural Development Committee, in consideration of the draft Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Elections (Scotland) Order 2002, recommends that the Order be approved.
that the Rural Development Committee, in consideration of the draft Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Designation, Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Scotland) Order 2002, recommends that the Order be approved.—[Allan Wilson.]
Motions agreed to.
I am sure that the committee is pleased that the work on the first national park is at last coming to fruition.
Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2002 (SSI 2002/81)<br />Import and Export Restrictions<br />(Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Scotland) Order (No 3) Revocation Regulations 2002<br />(SSI 2002/109)
Animals and Animal Products (Import<br />and Export) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/125)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of three statutory instruments under the negative procedure. No members have asked to comment on the instruments. Is the committee content to make no recommendations on the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Petition