Official Report 263KB pdf
Education (Graduate Endowment, Student Fees and Support) Switzerland (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/469)
Item 4 is consideration of two Scottish statutory instruments. To answer any questions that we have on the instruments, I welcome Ian Shanks, from the Scottish Executive's Legal and Parliamentary Services, and Valerie Sneddon, from the policy executive of the funding for learning division of the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department. Valerie is going to address the Education (Graduate Endowment, Student Fees and Support) Switzerland (Scotland) Regulations 2004.
I assume that all members have read the Executive's note on the regulations. The regulations have been introduced to fulfil the requirements of the agreement between the Swiss federation and the European Union. The aim of the regulations is to enable Swiss migrant workers, their spouses and their children to be treated for fees and student support services on the same basis as European Economic Area migrant workers, their spouses and their children.
As Christine May will confirm, the regulations have already been considered by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which found no issues to raise.
You took the words out of my mouth, convener, and I will not repeat them.
Given our recent experience with draft regulations, I wonder whether any mistakes have come to light that will have to be amended?
None that we are aware of.
Do you have any surprises?
No, I do not have any surprises. I am just glad to hear that.
I have raised this point before when we have considered subordinate legislation. I see that the regulations came into force six days ago, yet we are only now discussing them officially. Why were the regulations not brought before the committee earlier? Whose responsibility is it that that did not happen?
On these regulations, we have followed the requirements of the standing orders for statutory instruments. The regulations were made on 2 November, and we had to wait 21 days before they came into force, on 24 November. There is a 14-day period in which they can be annulled. It is up the Parliament authorities to decide when an instrument comes before a parliamentary committee.
It seems to be a case of putting the cart before the horse for us to deal with the matter in that order, and it would have been so even if we had seen the regulations last week. If we were to find a reason to object to the regulations, where would that leave us and the Swiss migrants in Scotland, however many there are?
We may want to take up that issue again with the Procedures Committee. We have taken it up with that committee before. We are in an invidious position. If, after the regulations have come into force, we recommend that they be annulled by the Parliament, it looks pretty daft and makes the Parliament look daft. I think that we should write to the Procedures Committee, asking it to look into the matter and see whether it can come up with a better way of doing business than this.
I had a question, but I have just read the Executive's note and I have answered my own question.
No, the Executive has answered your question.
Exactly.
I do not know the procedure for liaison between committees—for example, for the Subordinate Legislation Committee clerk to pass information and the committee's report to the lead committee. The Subordinate Legislation Committee agrees reports to the lead committees, but we do not agree the timetable for those reports. I do not know where that is dealt with in the administrative framework, but that question is worth asking.
The whole procedure needs to be reconsidered. The Subordinate Legislation Committee's role is to consider the technical aspects of an instrument and decide whether it is competent; our job is to consider the policy. However, it seems a bit daft to consider the policy more or less a week after an instrument has been implemented. That is not the fault of the Executive witnesses; it is entirely a procedural issue for the Parliament. We can draft a letter to the Procedures Committee and take the matter up with that committee. Is that agreed?
With that, are we happy not to recommend the annulment of the regulations?
Holyrood Park Amendment Regulations 2004 (Draft)
For consideration of the second statutory instrument, I welcome Jenny Hargreaves, from the royal parks visitor services department of Historic Scotland. These regulations might be much more controversial. Jenny, would you like to say a few words by way of introduction?
The regulations will introduce a pay-and-display charging scheme for the broad pavement car park in Holyrood park.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee found the matter interesting because the governance of the royal park lies with the Crown, but the day-to-day management of matters within the park and its operation lies either with the City of Edinburgh Council or with Historic Scotland, although I am not sure which.
It is managed by Historic Scotland for the Scottish ministers.
That is right. There was some debate about whether it was appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to consider the issue. It was agreed that it was but, nonetheless, some interesting constitutional matters were raised.
The park is Crown property.
Yes, but the day-to-day management, of which the regulations form a part, is devolved to the Scottish ministers.
Perhaps we should consider the nationalisation of Crown property, which would solve the problem.
That is a policy matter, so the Subordinate Legislation Committee would not have a view on it.
Jenny Hargreaves mentioned the broad pavement. Is that the area just at the junction where there is a small roundabout, with Holyroodhouse on one side and the Parliament building on the other?
Yes. It is to the south of the Palace of Holyroodhouse, below the crags.
From time to time, that area is used for events other than car parking. I am thinking of new year's day, on which there has been the 1 o'clock run for the past two years, which has been successful in getting families and others into Holyrood park. The area is used for entertainment and food stalls. If the regulations are approved, will it be possible for the parking measures to be suspended for such activities, for instance, on new year's day?
Yes. The explanatory note states that parking permits can be issued by the Scottish ministers, which means Historic Scotland. We have asked that the regulations not apply on Christmas day, boxing day, new year's day, Good Friday and Easter Monday.
Does that mean that the parking regulations for cars will be suspended on those days in that space?
Yes.
That clarifies the issue. Christine May might be better qualified to answer my second question because she is a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which raised three specific points on which it wished the Executive to respond. I presume that the Executive responded in the manner that the committee wanted, but could we be informed what those points were?
I cannot recall, but the answer is a matter of official record. I am sure that the clerk can ensure that a copy of the Official Report of the relevant meeting goes to every member.
In future, where issues have been raised, it might be useful to include a copy of that as an aide-mémoire. I ask Jenny Hargreaves whether she can remember.
Does Christine May mean the clerk of the Subordinate Legislation Committee?
I was referring to the questions that that committee asked, to which you would have replied.
The regulations were withdrawn and then resubmitted.
Yes. We are considering the revised version.
Yes. In cases in which we get a revised instrument on which points have been raised previously, it might be useful to have information on those points as an aide-mémoire.
I have a question on the policy behind the regulations. Historically, visitors to the palace, the Queen's gallery and the teashop in the palace—which is always popular—have been entitled to park for free. It is a shame that those visitors will now have to pay to park, but I can understand why the measure has been introduced. I know that numerous visitors to the Parliament have driven into the car park, claimed that they were going to the palace for a cup of tea or a visit and then wandered into the Parliament, thereby parking for free.
Never. Can you name them?
Such despicable behaviour will now be stamped out. Was any thought given to a scheme whereby genuine visitors to the palace would still be entitled to park for free if, for example, they have a receipted admission ticket.
I believe that the palace was asked about the matter. I also believe that it said at the time that it was happy to allow charging to go ahead.
Well, if the palace is happy, so am I.
Oh, you royalists—always doing what the Queen says.
I am supportive of the principle of the introduction of charging and can see why it is being done for the purposes of managing the area, but I am interested in a few aspects of how charging will operate in practice. Can you tell us something of how it is to be monitored and enforced? People in Edinburgh are used to things that the blue meanies do, although I am sure that such things would never happen in Holyrood park. At times, an official presence of some sort stops drivers getting into the park. When the charging arrangements are in place, will there be open access at all times to the car park for anyone who pays the parking charge? Who will go round checking windscreens?
We will continue to have a car-park attendant on site and he will check cars for tickets. As people come in, he will direct them to the pay-and-display machines and will continue to ensure that people are visiting either the park or the palace.
What is Historic Scotland's role in terms of the enforcement of parking charges? All of us are used to the local authority procedures to which I referred earlier.
That comes back to the questions that the Subordinate Legislation Committee raised which led to the redrafting of the regulations. Initially, we asked for an excess to be levied, but that power has now been withdrawn. At the moment, I cannot fully say what will happen. We have to take on trust what the people who come into the car park say when they tell the attendant that they are visiting the park or the palace.
I raised the question because of the importance of the issue. All of us can think of places such as hospitals and universities where, if the parking arrangements are barrier controlled or have a formal enforcement mechanism, people quickly test whether the system has real teeth. People are quick to find the car parks where there is no follow-up other than a nasty sticker being fixed to the car window. The question is not unimportant, although it may be less one of policy and more one of operational interest to Historic Scotland.
As the car-park attendant will be on duty while the parking charges are in place, we hope that the issue will not arise. As I said, the Executive recognised that the phrase "recoverable as a penalty", which was initially included in the draft regulations, was one that applied only under English law and did not have a Scottish equivalent. The Executive therefore withdrew the regulations and relaid them. As I said, I therefore do not have an answer at the moment to the second half of the question.
My final question concerns permits. Who qualifies for a permit?
At the moment, as the park is governed by the Parks Regulation Acts 1872 and 1926, we can issue permits to the people who are covered by those regulations.
I assume that Historic Scotland would take those decisions in practice. The regulations say that a parking permit is
No, they cannot. The park is managed by Historic Scotland.
So, in practical terms, Historic Scotland would exercise its discretion in that regard.
Yes.
Thank you. I take it that the committee is minded not to recommend annulment but to facilitate the introduction of the regulations?
Meeting closed at 16:19.
Previous
St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday Bill