National Parks (Scotland) Bill
We will now consider two bills that have begun their progress through Parliament. Members will be aware that the committee has suggested that this function should pass to the Procedures Committee. That suggestion has yet to be considered, so we still have to examine the financial memorandums.
On the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, the financial memorandum is set out on page 21 of the explanatory notes. A number of costs will have to be borne by the Scottish Administration and by Scottish Natural Heritage.
As ever, we are shooting in the dark, as is, it is fair to say, the Executive. The last time that we went through this process, we said that the Executive should be obliged to state where the proposed expenditure would come from. I think that Callum can confirm that we wrote to the Executive on the matter.
Callum Thomson (Clerk Team Leader):
This financial memorandum was published before we lodged our request. We are still waiting for a response from the minister in relation to the education bill.
Does anyone have any points to raise on the projected expenditure, particularly in relation to the Loch Lomond park or the likely second park in the Cairngorms?
This is an example of costs on which we could have been given more information about how the Executive did its calculations. There are no national parks in Scotland, but there are elsewhere in this country; those parks have running costs, which could be used as a model.
In particular, the figures in paragraphs 144 and 145 of the explanatory note are fairly defined. From the memorandum, we do not know the basis on which the estimates are given, but that would be the kind of information that we would need to be able to come to an informed decision.
We have discussed the limitations before but, in this case, I think that the Executive would have been in a position to answer a few questions and to give us more information. I do not want to push this matter today, but I think that, in future, someone should be present to explain the estimates or the matter should be referred to the lead committee on the bill, so that that committee could explore the costs.
The clerk has just informed me that the Rural Affairs Committee, in considering this bill, asked for such additional information and received it. I have not seen the Official Report for the relevant meeting of that committee, but that is the information that I have received.
I have two issues on which to comment, apart from those that Ken Macintosh has raised. In the explanatory notes to the bill, paragraph 148 reads:
"The Bill will impose no major additional cost on local authorities."
Having been a member of Stirling Council when the development of the park arose, I know that there were tremendous costs on local authorities. There is concern among the three authorities in the Loch Lomond park area about the on-going costs, despite the fact that a central body is taking the park proposal forward. The statement in the explanatory notes is not terribly clear. Similarly, the comment in paragraph 150 that
"the creation of National Parks should not create any compliance costs for business"
is not the interpretation that I get, still having a business in the area, nor is it that of colleagues who operate in the area. The notes make sweeping statements; they require more definition in future. On this occasion, as you said, convener, the Rural Affairs Committee is trying to tease out these matters.
The Finance Committee needs to be aware of the costs on such bodies as local authorities, whose funding partly comes through the Scottish Parliament. We should ensure a clear definition of what costs they might have to face, particularly as there may be different models in different parts of the country. The local authorities in the north-east of Scotland and the Highlands are concerned about the likely implications and about what budget support they may get. This is all a bit unknown. Some of them want an indemnity, which is difficult to achieve in a piece of legislation. We should send a clear message that this matter has not been handled with the greatest of clarity.
Can you clarify that yourself, David? Are you saying that the information that we have here is not as clear as it might be?
I think that we have to challenge whether the simple statement that the bill
"will impose no major additional cost on local authorities"
is justifiable. It is not what local authorities are telling us.
The costs to which you referred, in relation to Stirling, have presumably been incurred now. This refers to the period after the bill gains royal assent and becomes an act—it does not refer to retrospective spending.
It has nothing to do with retrospective grant.
You are saying that there are forward projections by Stirling Council. That suggests that it will have to bear some costs.
If there are changes in the planning set-up, whereby the park becomes a planning authority in certain respects, that will require additional effort from the three councils that feed into the national park body. There will be an overlap on local plans and on structural plans, and a lot of work will have to be done jointly between up to four sets of public officials. That is not without cost.
I do not want to labour David Davidson's point, but I would like to back him up on it. Having been involved on the margins of the consultation process on the Cairngorms park, I know how costly such consultation exercises can be.
Stirling Council is somewhat well known for being in the vanguard of local authority consultation, both with the Stirling assembly and its local forums. I support the parks, but controversies have arisen surrounding them, and the council will want to consult local people extensively.
The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park lies in the region for which I am one of the representatives. I am concerned about the operating costs. The estimates for operating costs are detailed and specific for both the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park and the Cairngorms national park. On the other hand, the estimates for programme costs fall within a much wider band. I am concerned about that; it might be helpful to have the relevant papers from the Rural Affairs Committee. I am also concerned that—although the information given on the operating costs is much more detailed than that for the programme costs—the operating costs estimates seem rather low.
We are required only to note that there will be an expenditure requirement from the Scottish consolidated fund as a result of the bill's being passed. However, both David and Keith have raised important points about that expenditure; the committee can ask for clarification on those points. What we say could be specifically related to the concerns of the three local authorities involved, which David spoke about. I imagine that they must have raised their concerns with the Rural Affairs Committee as the bill has progressed, so those concerns will already be on the record. However, this committee should also register the points that have been raised—although, as I said, all that we are required to do is to note that there will be a requirement for expenditure from the Scottish consolidated fund. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.