Subordinate Legislation Committee, 09 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 9, 2004

Official Report 201KB pdf

---

Draft Instrument Subject to Annulment

---

Holyrood Park Amendment Regulations 2004 (draft)

Our legal adviser has made a few points on the draft regulations. I think that Stewart Maxwell has an issue to raise.

The legal advice asks why the regulations are a matter of devolved competence rather than a reserved matter. The most appropriate paragraph in our briefing is paragraph 19, which says:

"although the physical management may be reserved (in the sense that it cannot be transferred to anyone else) the right… to make regulations governing management is not."

That seems reasonable.

It is clear that there are reserved matters to do with Holyrood park, as it is a royal park, but it is fine that the regulations deal with a devolved matter. I raise the issue because I do not think that there is any problem with the Executive's approach. It is entirely correct that the Executive is making regulations on parking at Holyrood. I agree with the definition that paragraph 19 provides and I do not think that we need to raise the matter with the Executive, as there is not a problem.

The second point that the legal briefing makes is about the purpose and effect of new regulation 4B(4) and the use of the phrase "recoverable as a penalty", which appears to be an English term that has no meaning in Scots law. Do members agree to ask the Executive about that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sorry to come in late, but I have a question about new regulation 4B(2), which says:

"The excess charge shall be paid to the Scottish Ministers".

I am not sure who will collect the money that is raised under the regulations and where it will go.

We will ask that question, too; that is no problem.

Can I just clarify whether what Stewart Maxwell said means that we will not ask the first question in the legal briefing?

I was indeed suggesting that it was unnecessary to ask that question, because I felt that the comments in paragraph 19 provided an acceptable answer.

You may well be right, but if we are asking the second question, it might be useful to get an explanation of the first point on the record.

I disagree; I think that the explanation is clear. The predecessor committee dealt with similar regulations and it took the view that I expressed, which was that it was not necessary to ask the Executive for an explanation. Although that should not necessarily influence what we do, I feel that there is no great reason why we should make such a request. Why do you want to pursue the matter? Do you not accept the explanation that paragraph 19 provides, which is that regulations that govern the management of land in a royal park are not subject to reserved powers?

The fact that you are so keen to stop us asking a perfectly straightforward question—the answer to which would give us an explanation on the record of an issue that was apparently not pursued on a previous occasion—makes me instinctively suspicious. As we are writing to the Executive to ask the second question, we may as well ask the first one.

We may as well do that.

I will not go to the wall on the issue, even though I think that the explanation that we have been given is clear.

Do members agree to ask that question?

Members indicated agreement.