The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3697 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2024
John Mason
This question follows on from Michelle Thomson’s point about the ScotWind money. I accept the point that it is very hard to start a savings scheme, investment fund, sovereign wealth fund or whatever when we are in real financial challenges. Would a compromise be for that money to be ring fenced for capital expenditure—not necessarily just for renewables, but housing, roads, railways or whatever? That would be an investment for the future. Although we would not be setting the money aside, we would be saying that it is definitely going to an investment.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 7 February 2024
John Mason
This group is quite straightforward, with Rachael Hamilton going in one direction and me going in another.
I and many others support the proposals that the Scottish Government has set out in the bill. However, it is important that NatureScot’s wider conservation functions are not diminished in any way and that the administration costs of trapping, grouse shooting and muirburn licences are covered in full by applicants. NatureScot is taking on significant additional licensing functions as part of the bill, and I think that I heard the minister say that NatureScot might need new staff as a result. We do not want NatureScot’s resources for other work to be reduced because of that. Public finances are tight, and if the public purse has to subsidise those licences, it means less money for other important needs. Rachael Hamilton slightly overstates the case when she uses words such as “punish” and “thumbscrews”, but the reality is that money is tight, and £1 extra for subsidising landowners means £1 less for the national health service.
In the context of the climate and nature emergency, we need a strong NatureScot. I understand that NatureScot does not charge for the licensing functions that it administers. However, other organisations, such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, already charge for most of their licensing functions. With regard to firearms licence administration, via Police Scotland, the public already bears the cost, to a large extent, of what is largely a private benefit.
In this case, the aim of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill is explicitly about addressing the illegal persecution of raptors that is associated with grouse shooting and to improve trapping and muirburn practice to prevent damage to public interests. Grouse shooting is largely a private benefit linked to land ownership, so it feels inequitable to many that the public should have to cover the costs of such licences, especially when, in the context of grouse shooting, the legislation is designed to address the long-standing illegal behaviours of some practitioners. The legislation is intended to act as a meaningful deterrent to illegal behaviours and bad practice in land management. If the licence applicant has to pay the administration costs of the licensing service, it could also be argued that they will have greater investment in the process and will focus more on what they are asked to deliver—namely, the licence conditions set by NatureScot for the receipt of a licence to operate trapping, grouse shooting and muirburn.
I gather that there is due to be a licensing review at some point. The minister referred to that when I asked her a question in the chamber in December. It would be good to hear from the minister what her current thinking is on the subject of full cost recovery, the timescale of any review and whether she is minded to support charging for the specific licensing functions that are related to the bill.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 7 February 2024
John Mason
Does the minister agree that the figures in the financial memorandum are estimates? In some cases, they appear to be quite clear estimates in relation to the bill that we are discussing, but the estimates relating to many other bills are incredibly rough. Does she accept that a guideline in the financial memorandum is certainly not fixed in stone?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 7 February 2024
John Mason
Can you give us the timescale for the review?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 7 February 2024
John Mason
Would Ms Hamilton accept that I did not say that there was no public benefit?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
John Mason
Okay—I will leave that with you. It would be good if the figure were less than 10 per cent, I suppose.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
John Mason
My next question was going to be whether 11 per cent was a reasonable figure. Do you benchmark that percentage against costs in other countries? I do not know what Denmark or anywhere else spends, for example. However, at last week’s meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, we heard that Social Security Scotland is aiming for a figure of 5.2 per cent for its costs to distribute benefits, which is also quite a complex area.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
John Mason
There would still be a core cost even if you paid out no grants.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
John Mason
Is there no estimate for implementation costs?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
John Mason
I am assuming that the IT systems could probably cope with it if you tweak the present system but that, if you do something radically different, we might need a new system.