Seòmar agus comataidhean

Many of your relationships are with solicitors and solicitor firms. If MSPs are approached about Registers of Scotland, by and large we refer the people involved to solicitors because many of the issues that are being dealt with are legal and we are not qualified or allowed to provide legal advice. MSPs tend to deal with public bodies’ processes and injustices. When something to do with land registration goes wrong—with title deeds, for example—it can be extremely distressing for a member of the public.

I have a current case. I will not go into the detail of it but I am concerned about how Registers of Scotland has dealt with it. After many years, my constituent now has a title deed that reflects the Ordnance Survey map. We have had many and extended contacts with Registers of Scotland.

My constituent paid to download the land register that appears on the website. Just a few weeks ago, they were told without notice that Registers of Scotland was going to change it after many years.

This is not about process: it is about how people are dealt with and their mental distress. Something that can seem very dry, because it is about legal contracts and registers, has a human face.

I do not know how many letters or contacts you have had from MSPs about that process. You may not have had the information to date—you have said that you are now going to find out about citizen customer satisfaction. Until now, there has been no means of knowing about that, except for the complaints process, which has not been as accessible as those of other public bodies.

You talk about the future. This meeting is part of our feedback to you about what matters. How can you improve your processes so that you are more alert? You are here as the keeper of the registers of Scotland. You have senior responsibility. When things go wrong and there is an injustice, you should be alert to that. That is about more than generalised customer satisfaction. I am being direct, but how our constituents come to us with issues about your organisation is pertinent and relevant.

It is clear that the Climate Assembly is not going away but is going into the future. We are not the Government; we are the Parliament. However, if we can keep in contact, the convener might want to consider, along with committee members, what role the committee might have in anything that your members want to do to engage through the Parliament as they continue with their forum and networking. On that note, I pass back to the convener.

Thank you for your perspective. Clearly, the Climate Assembly has, in its work, done great service to the people of Scotland and beyond, but the formal work of the assembly ended with your final weekend. Is any process in place for further engagement and deliberation? How does the assembly propose to monitor the outcome of its work and continue to hold the Government to account for delivery of its recommendations? If such a process does not exist, that is a challenge.

I am conscious that this is the second time that the assembly has given evidence to the committee. Are there any specific things that the climate assembly would ask of the Parliament, or of the committee, to take forward the work, monitoring and accountability that some of your members have referred to?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a member of the stewarding group for Scotland’s Climate Assembly.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. In its statement of response, the Climate Assembly makes a very strong statement when it says:

“We believe, from the Scottish Government’s response to our recommendations for action, that Government needs to think less about what they can’t do and instead demonstrate a positive attitude, thinking hard about how they can make things happen.”

However, the Government was responding to recommendations from the Climate Assembly itself, and a lot of those recommendations, in particular the latter ones, are in areas where the Scottish Government does not have powers but the Westminster Government does.

I know that the assembly members were informed by a lot of expertise in different areas. Were you quite clear as to what the Scottish Government has responsibility for and what it does not have responsibility for? Was it deliberate that you made recommendations on which the Scottish Government could not take action?

When you say that the Scottish Government should think

“hard about how they can make things happen”,

is that in the areas in which it has responsibility, or are you asking it to try to have an impact in areas that are still reserved to Westminster?

Graham Simpson might not be aware of this, but the committee is currently conducting an inquiry into how local government can work with partners to deliver the net zero target, and a reduction in car use is clearly part of that.

The question that we are faced with in this SSI is not whether we should revisit the scheme—indeed, Graham Simpson has been very up-front about not wanting a scheme at all—but one of timing. Are the charges being introduced this year, or is there some time for preparation?

There is also the question of whether the SSI will address some of the issues that have been raised today. However, those issues will be addressed not by the minister but by local authorities, and the choice for us is whether we empower local authorities in that respect.

The local authorities can, in putting forward their schemes, use their own powers under the act to decide what exemptions might be needed. Each city might be different in that respect. Realistically, we are talking about cities, not rural areas.

As for putting a cap in place, local authorities themselves can do that. In fact, they will need to do so as part of the impact assessment report that they will have to put together. Similarly, with regard to the modelling, they will need to identify what can and cannot be done with displacement. I do not know whether other members have tried to park in Edinburgh city centre for any length of time, but the permits there are for local residents, not for anyone coming into the city to use car parking spaces. The reality is that, in both our major cities, times have changed with regard to the transport issues that they face.

What it comes down to is local authorities being able to make their own decisions. I know from city leaders that they are very involved with local businesses and what they might or might not need, and I very much welcome the funding that the Scottish Government has given for city centre regeneration and recovery. They are being supported in that respect.

Mr Simpson referred to Nottingham, but the whole point of that scheme was that the council wanted fewer people to use their cars. It is therefore not surprising that there are fewer cars going into Nottingham. I found it a bit odd that that was highlighted as a problem with the scheme.

It is absolutely clear that public transport needs more funding. Yes, we need more funding at a national level, and others might want to say something about the efforts that are being made to increase money for transport in the budget that we have just considered. However, that can happen at a local level, too. I also point out that the need for consultation and the report that, as a result of this SSI, local authorities will have to produce will address a lot of the concerns that have been raised.

Finally, as this is a debate, I think it is worth pointing out that the Conservatives’ manifesto for the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections said:

“Councils should lead post-COVID reviews of changed travel patterns in their area and be encouraged to create more low traffic neighbourhoods, bus and bike only roads, school streets and low emission zones where they would be beneficial.”

I also note that, in the Scottish Conservatives’ manifesto for the 2017 local government elections, Graham Simpson said:

“We need to empower councils and give them a renewed sense of meaning and purpose. They can and must be the engines of growth. ... We believe that decisions should be taken as locally as possible and that power should lie with politicians elected as locally as possible.”

The nub of the matter with this SSI is: do we or do we not trust local authorities to make their own decisions? I do not expect every local authority to implement the regulations. It is clear that the two major cities are interested in doing so, but, before they can, they will have to produce a report and carry out an impact assessment. Moreover, they—or, indeed, the minister—can appoint a reporter to examine the propositions.

With that, I will end, convener. I thank everyone for giving an airing to this important subject.

Is it just the timing that you have a problem with, or are you fundamentally opposed to the measure that was approved by the Parliament and enacted three years ago?

On timing, do you recognise the minister’s point that any scheme will not be implemented immediately? That will take time, and the minister said that it could be a number of years. Arguing about the situation now could prevent local authorities from doing anything for years to come.

Will you respond to those points, please?

Good morning. It would be helpful if the minister could clarify the difference between what is in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament some years ago, and the SSI that is before us. Clearly, if there were defects in the SSI, we would have been alerted to that. The main concern seems to be about timing. Have any technical aspects of the SSI been brought to the Government’s attention?

The instrument is primarily about the mechanism. Indeed, it specifies quite a lot of safeguards for communities in relation to the consultation process, the setting out of charges and the point about a reporter, which the minister referred to. Perhaps she could also expand on that a bit.

It is also important for us to have an indication of whether we expect every single local authority in Scotland to use the powers, or whether it will just be the local authorities in the two major cities, as was the case back in 2017, based on the manifestos of different parties in those two cities.

On consultation, as my constituency lies between Glasgow and Edinburgh, I am familiar with the issues for commuters who travel to Glasgow and Edinburgh. We now have city region deals, which have transport aspects, particularly for commuters, including park-and-ride schemes. Surely any consideration by the City of Edinburgh Council should consider the impact on Midlothian, East Lothian and West Lothian. The spend might be best placed in park-and-ride schemes on the outskirts of Edinburgh that connect to bus lanes into the city. Obviously, Edinburgh has a very good public transport system, although it could always be improved. The same applies in relation to going into Glasgow. I am campaigning for a park-and-ride scheme from Whitburn into both cities. Those are the types of things that people are looking for.

I ask the minister to expand on her thoughts and understanding in relation to some of those matters. I am happy for her to bring in her officials to differentiate between what is in the 2019 act and what is in the instrument. I am always open to SSIs being brought back but, unless something else has been brought to the minister’s attention, the key issue seems to be about timing.

I cannot tell whether an official wants to speak.

Thank you for those very comprehensive remarks on the history of and context for all of this. The issue is not necessarily the SSI itself but the original act, which was passed some time ago.

I am happy to pass back to the convener.