Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 1, 2022

Official Report 615KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Pavement Parking Prohibition (Exemption Orders Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 [Draft]

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a draft Scottish statutory instrument. I welcome to the meeting Jenny Gilruth, the Minister for Transport—thank you for making yourself available, minister—and her officials: Elise McIntyre, principal legal officer, Scottish Government legal directorate, and Donald Morrison, head of asset management and procurement, Transport Scotland.

As the instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, the Parliament must approve—[Interruption.] It is very dangerous if somebody else can mute the convener, as just happened—it is not something that I want to continue in future.

Let me try that bit again. As the instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, the Parliament must approve it before it can come into force. Following this evidence-taking session, the committee will be invited under the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. I remind everyone that officials can speak under this item but will not be able to speak in the debate that follows.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Minister, I can mute your microphone if you go on too long—but, of course, I would not do that.

Thank you for inviting me today to provide evidence on the draft Pavement Parking Prohibition (Exemption Orders Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2022.

As the committee will be aware, the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 already gives local authorities the relevant powers to exempt areas of footway from the pavement parking prohibitions. It also confers powers on Scottish ministers to make detailed provisions for the process that local authorities should follow when making, amending or revoking such exemption orders.

In line with commitments that were made when Parliament approved the 2019 act, the regulations were laid in Parliament last month, and the SSI, which is technical in nature, sets out the framework that local authorities must follow. Putting the regulations in place will support local authorities’ decision making by providing a consistent, fair and transparent process for all to follow when making exemption orders, and they are needed to give local authorities a detailed procedure for putting such orders in place where they deem appropriate and in line with the powers in the 2019 act.

In setting out the procedures, my officials have consulted the parking standards stakeholder working group, which consists of all 32 local authorities and other interested parties, and the group’s input has been really vital in shaping the regulations that are under discussion. As well as those views, we received 626 responses to the public consultation, the findings of which were published in June, and those comments have shaped the regulations, too.

It is important to stress that inconsistent, obstructive or dangerous parking can and does cause serious problems for everyone, and it puts the safety of pedestrians and, often, other motorists at risk. The pavement parking prohibitions, therefore, are aimed at promoting, supporting and advancing the rights of pedestrians to ensure that our pavements and roads are accessible to all.

Local authorities are best placed to make informed decisions on the management of their local road network, and the implementation of the regulations will allow them to complete their road assessment process and to determine appropriate exemptions to the ban that suit the needs of pedestrians and road users alike. There will be a period of around 12 months before the commencement of the enforcement regulations to give local authorities time to review any initial exemptions that they wish to put in place before they can undertake any enforcement action. Funding of £2.4 million has already been issued to local authorities over the past two years to allow the assessments to take place, and my officials will, of course, keep in touch with local authorities in order to gather information on the number of exemption orders that are likely to be promoted before they can start to issue penalty charge notices in late 2023.

It is also worth saying that Transport Scotland will be undertaking a significant awareness-raising campaign in the lead-up to the implementation of the new prohibitions and potential exemptions. The initial market research and design work for the campaign has already started, with the aim of going live in late 2023. That will ensure that the public are aware that they are permitted to park in areas where the local council has made an exemption order and that such areas will be clearly signed and lined.

I am happy to answer the committee’s questions on the content of the regulations.

Thank you very much, minister. Can you clarify something for me? I know that this is a bit procedural, but I sat on the committee that looked at the Transport (Scotland) Bill and we never quite bottomed out the definition of “pavement parking”. We are giving councils the right to make exemptions, but are you satisfied that the definition of “pavement parking” is good enough?

I am satisfied. I might bring in my officials to talk about the history of the 2019 act, which you will appreciate pre-dates my time in office, but, as you know, the act introduced the national ban. What we are discussing today is the technical procedure that local authorities must follow. I will ask my officials to talk about the historical background of the definition that you have alluded to.

Before you bring them in, minister, I will give you two specific examples. Some parking bays are marked on pavements and allow for more than 1.5m between the car bay and the edge of the walkway. It is my understanding that, although the car is parked on the pavement, that is not defined as pavement parking.

If a car is parked in a pavement parking slot and the front or rear of the car protrudes over the pavement, is that defined as something that will need an exemption? I would be happy to hear some clarity on the definition from Donald Morrison.

I am happy to take that. The definition of a pavement would normally be set out in design guidance, and the pavement would be physically delineated. That would be the normal convention to identify what a pavement is. It is defined as being separated from the carriageway, usually by a kerb, and is a paved or rough surface. There are complications where there are defined parking bays on pavements, which may require an exemption order. I would need to check that. If that was the case, the remainder of the footway would have to be a minimum of 1.5m wide, so that it would remain passable for pedestrians.

It would be helpful to clarify that for councils.

There is also an issue with dropped kerbs. There are various types of dropped kerb: some are specifically designed for pedestrian access, and some are dropped to allow access to parking bays, perhaps from the back of a lorry. There are also private dropped kerbs to allow access to garages. Do all of those require exemptions? I am seeking some clarity for councils because I am confused, despite having done research into the Transport (Scotland) Bill to understand whether those aspects have been clarified.

That it is a fair question. Elise McIntyre will come in on the specifics, and I might speak about ministerial directions after that.

The exception does not apply to kerbs that have been lowered for the purpose of accessing a driveway or garage. Therefore, private access to someone’s house would not be covered by the dropped kerb prohibition, but all other instances of a dropped kerb would be covered by that prohibition. Any other exemption would have to be covered by an exemption order.

Is it right to say that a dropped kerb in a parking bay, which has been put there to allow lorries to unload in a loading bay, could never be blocked without an exemption order being put in place?

Not unless it is covered by one of the exemptions that is already set out in the act.

Exemptions for goods delivery vehicles are already set out in the act. There is a 20-minute limit on the delivery of goods. There is also an exemption for emergency vehicles and I think that one other type of vehicle also falls into that category.

That is right with regard to the pavement parking exemption.

Minister, are you satisfied that all of those points are covered?

I am satisfied.

The proof will be in the pudding. Mark Ruskell has some questions.

It is good to see the instrument being presented to the committee and that progress being made.

My question is about how the hearings process for exemptions will work in practice. Would a council bring together all of its exemptions and all of the associated issues into one hearing, or would there be multiple hearings for different towns or different parts of a council area? I am trying to understand how that process might work.

I do not envisage there being multiple hearings, although that is a right that the local authority has through the regulations. Local authorities must also consult on any exemptions that they propose, which I discussed with my officials prior to the meeting. There is no statutory rate or level for the number of objections that might be received. Scottish ministers have the power to appoint a reporter and to conduct what would essentially be a hearing process. That would be a matter for the local authority to judge, because those are local roads. Local authorities should be trusted to do that and perhaps to measure where they see the greatest number of objections to a suggested exemption. If there are limited numbers of objections, we might expect them not to go down that route.

The legislation does not dictate the process to local authorities per se, but a hearing is an option that is open to local authorities. It is important that they get it right for local communities, because we do not want to see vast swathes of exemptions in relation to the legislation.

09:45  

Okay. My other question is around associated work that councils might be thinking of doing as they implement the regulations. One area might be around the designation of loading bays, where there might have been calls from the community for a long time to put a loading bay in place. This legislation brings that to a head, because the ability to pay and park will be taken away, quite rightly. I am wondering where councils are up to with that. Is there a need to push through a lot of traffic regulation orders on loading bays at the moment, or is there other associated work that councils are having to think through when they consider how to make communities work?

Some local authorities are further ahead on that than others. Some are obviously waiting for the regulations to come into force, as I hope they will following our discussion. That is why we have built in that 12-month period to allow local authorities to get it right.

The second point is that we have already provided £2.4 million of funding to local authorities in relation to signing and lining. I hope that that will help with regard to the specifics of Mark Ruskell’s point, but that is obviously a matter for local authorities to determine, recognising that they will be the best people to decide what is right for their local communities. Donald Morrison may want to say more; I see that he is indicating that.

I was going to say exactly the same thing. Because local authorities are currently assessing their streets, and will be for the next 12 months, for the purpose of exemption orders, I am sure that they will take the opportunity to look at how else they can take advantage in terms of defining their streets.

The other thing to say is that, although we will be running a national campaign, local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that their local communities know that the changes are coming into force. Bluntly, there will have to be a sea change in parking behaviour and local authorities and Government need to be part of driving that. The market research behind our publicity campaign at national level is already under way, and we hope to bring that forward, further into 2023, to get the public ready for the changes.

Good. It is an important entry point to have that discussion within communities.

Sorry, minister, can I push slightly on that? Are you thinking that, if there need to be hearings, those will be done locally by councils? I am just thinking about the Highland Council area. The council could, for example, put in an exemption order to cover the whole thing, which covers Wick to Skye to Inverness to Aviemore.

I take on board your point, convener; that is a vast area of Scotland. In the regulations, there is the power for local authorities to decide for themselves how to administer any hearings process; it is not for Government to dictate.

It is not a mandatory hearing, obviously. It is one that the council or local authority could choose to hold if it felt that there were enough objections and things like that. It would depend how many there were. I think that it is unlikely that the council would make one exemption order covering the whole of that area. That would obviously be a huge hearing and a vast administrative burden. It might be more likely to be parcelled up into smaller areas—I do not know. That would be a matter for the local authority.

The local authority would have to judge. If it had a certain number of objections in a certain area and identified that there was a real challenge, you would expect the local authority to respond accordingly. It is very dependent on the level of interest in the exemptions at local level. However, as I mentioned in response to Mr Ruskell, in terms of driving the behaviour change that we need to see, we do not want to see vast swathes of exemptions. The regulations give local authorities a power, but there is, nonetheless, still a national pavement parking ban.

Okay. I am sure that there is guidance in there somewhere, minister.

There is, yes.

Good morning, minister. My question picks up on behaviour change, which you have mentioned a couple of times. We all recognise that that will be key to the success of the legislation. I want a bit more information about the national information campaign. What is the budget for that campaign and what will be its duration? You also talked about the importance of local messaging, so will there be assistance for local authorities to do the sort of hyper-local messaging that will make sure that we can get people on board as much as possible?

In relation to the national marketing campaign, I discussed that with officials yesterday. I have mentioned that the market research behind that is already under way. I do not have the budget line in front of me, but I am more than happy to write to the committee, if it would like to have evidence on the budget line that is associated with the campaign. The campaign is under way, so there will be an associated budget line.

On messaging, local authorities have a responsibility to consult their local communities and to carry out an equalities impact assessment. They can also use social media to promote the changes through different forums. No budget is associated with that per se, but I mentioned in my response to Mark Ruskell that there is £2.4 million-worth of funding to support local authorities with the assessment and implementation of the changes.

Thank you. It would be helpful if the minister could keep us up to date about the national information campaign.

I am happy to do so. It is worth saying that more regulations are coming forward on the parking ban. This instrument is the first part of the jigsaw.

We will see you soon, then.

Indeed.

I have a question arising from Monica Lennon’s questions. In the current financial situation, local authorities will be concerned about incurring further costs. What does the Scottish Government believe to be the additional cost to local authorities of bringing in the process if it runs as fully as Elise McIntyre mentioned earlier?

At this time, it is quite difficult for us to say what the future cost will be. Donald Morrison and I mentioned, I think in response to Ms Lennon’s question, that some local authorities are further down the road than others, while some are waiting and holding back their consultation and assessment processes until the regulations come into force. Therefore, we do not yet know where they are in their planning or what the associated costs with that would be.

We would certainly want to continue working with local authority partners. They have been part of the working group to develop the parking guidance for example. That has been pivotal. They have helped to shape and change the guidance as officials have worked with them during the past year and a bit.

We as a Government recognise the need to listen and respond to changes accordingly. I take Mr Kerr’s point seriously, because I recognise some of the financial challenges that local authorities and, it should be said, the Scottish Government face at this time.

We have provided funding of £2.4 million, and we will continue to work with local authority partners on those costs. However, at this time, it is not possible to give a quantifiable amount for each local authority, because some are further down the road with their assessments than others and others have yet to start the process and therefore will not have a cost associated with the work itself.

I understand that answer. Incidentally, I am not quite clear whether the £2.4 million is for publicity and awareness raising as well as for the process. One would have thought that the Scottish Government would be able to project the cost that is associated with the publication of proposals, consultation, the handling of representations, appointing a reporter and a process to hold a hearing. It should be able to come up with at least a ballpark figure for that. Local authorities should also be able to say that, when the measures come in, what the costs would roughly be if they had to run a full process. Am I missing something, minister?

No, I understand your point. However, I think that the position is different because, as I have said, certain local authorities are further down the line, while others have not yet started the process. We do not expect there to be exemptions to the national parking ban across vast swathes of the country. As I have mentioned, officials will continue to work with local authorities through the working group to monitor those costs.

Mr Kerr asked whether the £2.4 million-worth of funding is for marketing. The funding is to help local authorities with signing and lining, and changes to the procedure locally. There are a vast number of ways in which that funding is helping to support local authorities. Some will need that more than others, such as those that are looking to have exemptions or those that might have more streets that require exemptions. That gives us a mixed picture nationally in terms of the implementation of policy.

I am more than happy to continue to monitor the implementation of the procedure in relation to the assessment that local authorities will now be undertaking in the next 12 months and to give the committee interim updates as we progress towards the full ban coming into force at the end of 2023, if that would be helpful.

I think that that might be helpful.

As there are no other questions, we move to item 3, which is formal consideration of motion S6M-06081. I remind members that only the minister and members can speak in the debate. I ask the minister to speak to and move the motion.

I have probably said enough already this morning, convener.

Motion moved,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Pavement Parking Prohibition (Exemption Orders Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 [draft] be approved.

I see that there are no contributions from members.

Minister, there have been various commitments made prior to this point, with which I hope you will agree.

Yes.

The question is, that motion S6M-06081, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, be approved.

Motion agreed to.

As we will be reporting on the outcome of the instrument, I seek the committee’s authority to delegate to me, as convener, the authority to approve the draft and report on its publication to the Parliament. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Perfect. I thank the minister and her officials for their time.

09:56 Meeting suspended.  

09:58 On resuming—  

---

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No 3) Order 2022 [Draft]

Item 4 is consideration of another draft statutory instrument. I welcome Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, to the meeting. I also welcome his officials: Mariana Cover, who is senior policy adviser for carbon markets and the emissions trading system, and Lucy Geoghegan—I hope that I have got the pronunciation right; I practised beforehand to make sure that I did—who is head of carbon pricing and the ETS unit.

The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force.

Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next item to consider a motion to approve the instrument.?I remind everyone that the officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

10:00  

?

I am pleased to give evidence to the committee in support of the draft affirmative instrument to amend the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Order 2020. This spring, the United Kingdom emissions trading scheme authority, which is formed of the four UK Administrations, consulted on proposals to further develop the UK ETS, aligning the scheme with our ambitious net zero targets. The authority is still considering the consultation responses regarding proposals on tightening the cap and expanding the scope. We will publish a joint Government response in due course.

However, some of the operational and technical changes to the UK ETS need to come into force by 2023 and therefore the authority published an early joint Government response covering those amendments to the scheme. Together, the amendments will support the proper function of the ETS.

The amendments are contained in the draft affirmative instrument that the committee is considering today and in a negative instrument to be laid later in November. Today’s affirmative instrument will allow flights from Great Britain to Switzerland to be in scope of the UK ETS. That expansion of the scope will be extended to include Northern Ireland at a later date. Switzerland has already amended its ETS to include flights from Switzerland to the UK. The affirmative instrument will ensure a fully reciprocal arrangement that supports our climate objectives.

The instrument also makes minor amendments to the allocation of free allowances in the ETS to reflect the inclusion of the flights within the scheme. The other members of the authority are also going through a similar scrutiny process in their respective Parliaments to ensure that the legislation is consistent across all Administrations.

Ahead of publishing the final Government response to the consultation, we expect the UK ETS authority to publish the common framework agreement setting out how the four Administrations work together to deliver the UK ETS. I will be happy to provide more details on those issues once those have been published.

I am happy to respond to any questions on the affirmative instrument that the committee may have.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Are there any questions?

What have been the practical impacts of the exclusion of those flights up to this point? How has that affected the functioning of the ETS, its effectiveness or revenue raising?

The effects have been very small. To some extent it will not make a significant difference. It is worth keeping in mind that, when we were covered by the European Union ETS, those flights were included. The order is simply covering a gap that was left when the UK ETS was introduced. Given that there are only a small number of flights between Scotland and Switzerland, and indeed between Switzerland and the UK as a whole, the overall impact is very small. However, I cannot give you specific data on that.

Okay.

As there are no other questions we will move on to the next item, which is formal consideration of motion S6M-06005.

Motion moved,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022 [draft] be approved.—[Michael Matheson]

Motion agreed to.

The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve the draft of the report for publication. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, for attending what has probably been your shortest meeting at a committee for a long time, with as few questions as you could probably hope for.

10:04 Meeting suspended.  

10:08 On resuming—