As you will appreciate, convener, with some 33 amendments in the group I have a considerable amount to say. However, in covering the issues, I will say less than the people who have been speaking to their amendments. I will avoid taking interventions, in order to speed up the process. Members should keep that in mind.
Amendment 4, in the name of Jackie Baillie, seeks to extend the pavement parking ban to parked vehicles overhanging pavements by “more than 20 centimetres”. I acknowledge the reasoning behind the amendment, but in my view it goes too far. It is not necessarily the case that vehicles overhanging by 20cm will give rise to access or safety issues or, indeed, that it will be practically avoidable for motorists.
Options such as wheel stops in parking bays are available to local authorities to limit overhanging. Where overhanging clearly causes an obstruction and is therefore a safety or access issue, that constitutes an offence under sections 59(2) and 129(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
I move on to pavement widths. In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that motorists parking on the pavement under an exception should have to leave a minimum of 1.5m of pavement space to enable free movement of pedestrians. However, amendment 1, in the name of John Mason, would go further by enabling all motorists to park on the pavement provided that they leave 1.5m for pedestrian access. The intention of this part of the bill is to introduce a national and consistently enforced ban on pavement parking, subject to local discretion on exemptions. In my view, local authorities are best placed to decide where roads should be exempt from the prohibition, taking account of carriageway and pavement widths, road construction and access issues. Amendment 1 would fundamentally undermine that approach.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 292 and consequential amendment 295 seek to broaden the discretion that is afforded to local authorities in making exemption orders by removing the requirement that streets that are to be exempt possess characteristics that are set out in the ministerial directions, which are currently being developed in conjunction with local authorities. Although local authority discretion over exemptions is important, a degree of national consistency will ensure that the bill’s policy aims are not undermined through excessive use of exemptions. I therefore cannot support amendment 292.
Amendment 295 removes the definition of “carriageway” from section 43 and appears to be consequential to amendment 292, which seeks to remove section 43(2), in which the term “carriageway” is used. However, I wonder whether that is a mistake, given that the term also appears in Jamie Greene’s amendment 293.
The direction setting out the characteristics will include the consideration of carriageway and pavement width measurements so as to ensure that, if there is a street through which the passage of emergency vehicles could be hindered by the introduction of the pavement parking prohibition, that street can be included in the local authority’s exemption order. I therefore do not consider that there is a need for amendment 293, which seeks to put in the bill a duty for local authorities to consider exemptions to allow the passage of emergency vehicles.
Amendment 117, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeks to prevent local authorities from exempting pavements from the ban if vehicles that are parked on those pavements would leave less than 1.5m for pedestrians to pass. In my view, that rigid approach does not give local authorities enough flexibility in relation to, for example, historic streets with narrow footways and carriageways where a minimum of 1.5m could not be achieved without hindering the passage of vehicles on the carriageway.
Amendment 294, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to remove the requirement that exemption orders may not be subject to conditions. Although I again acknowledge the importance of local authority discretion, an ability to place an unspecified variety of conditions on exemptions is likely to undermine the consistency and simplicity of the prohibitions and their enforcement, which I consider to be key to their effectiveness.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 296 and consequential amendment 297 seek to impose on the Scottish ministers a requirement to prescribe in regulations the form of the traffic signs that are to be used in connection with exemption orders under section 43. Both those amendments are unnecessary, because the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 at sections 64(1) and (2) already gives the Scottish ministers a regulation-making power to prescribe traffic signs, including traffic signs for exemption orders, under section 43. My officials are working on the design of those signs in order that suitable amendments to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 will be brought forward to prescribe them.
Section 47(3) contains an exhaustive list of exceptions from the parking prohibitions where such undesirable parking is necessary in the course of the performance of a number of public services. The integrity of the prohibitions relies on the list being strictly limited and nationally consistent. I therefore cannot support amendment 298, in the name of Jamie Greene, as it seeks to give local authorities the ability to add unlimited further exemptions to the list.
The effect of amendments 299 and 304, in the name of Colin Smyth, would be that vehicles that are left unattended cannot take advantage of the exceptions in sections 47(3) and (6). In many circumstances, it would be impossible for the vehicle driver at whom these exceptions are targeted—such as a delivery driver or postal worker—to undertake their duties if they were not permitted to leave their vehicle unattended, for at least a brief period. That restriction is completely impractical and I therefore cannot support it.
The amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles take account of the committee’s concerns about the obstruction of pavements when motorists are parking under the exceptions in section 47(3). Obstructive or dangerous parking can and does cause serious problems for everyone and puts the safety of pedestrians and motorists in jeopardy. The amendments ensure that there is a reasonable and practical balance between the needs of those who are parked in the majority of circumstances that are otherwise excepted under section 47, and the needs and safety of pedestrians. They put in place a clear and consistent requirement that the majority of exceptions under section 47 apply only if
“1.5 metres of the pavement”
is left for pedestrian passage. That should facilitate effective enforcement and tackle the issue of obstruction. I therefore fully support the amendments in this group that have been lodged by Mike Rumbles.
Amendment 305, in the name of Colin Smyth, aims to achieve a similar outcome for the delivery and loading exception in section 47(6). I support the principle behind the amendment, but the amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles tackle the issue more effectively, and do so consistently across the majority of exceptions in section 47. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 305.
However, I cannot support the principle behind amendments 129, 139, 139A and 139B, in the name of Colin Smyth, which seek to remove the delivery and loading exception from the face of the bill, and instead give ministers the power to set out a similar exception in regulations. I have listened to the views of the committee and a range of stakeholders on this exception. It is important to note the views of the road haulage and delivery industries as part of the dialogue. There is also a need to strike a balance to allow businesses in Scotland to continue to operate, while protecting the accessibility of our pavements. As I have already mentioned, the amendments that have been lodged by Mike Rumbles would improve the provisions as introduced, and would safeguard the accessibility of pavements. I am not convinced that ministers could make any provision in regulations to improve what is already set out in the bill.
Amendment 303, in the name of Jamie Greene, would remove the 20-minute maximum waiting period from the delivery and loading exception, so that a vehicle parked on a pavement or double parked under that exception could remain parked for longer than 20 minutes, if it could be shown that it was necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading to take place. The exception in section 47(6) offers a limited relaxation of the prohibition for short-term parking only. It was never intended to allow for longer-term stays. If parking for extended periods is required, delivery and loading vehicles should seek alternatives to parking on the pavement or double parking. I have serious concerns that the legal effect of amendment 303 would be to allow parking for deliveries for an unlimited and unspecified period, which would fundamentally undermine the intention that underlies this exception and the pavement and double parking prohibitions more generally.
Amendment 300, in the name of Jamie Greene, would allow anyone to park on a pavement for an undefined time period while they collect or drop off someone
“who is disabled, vulnerable, or has impaired mobility”.
As amendment 300 does not provide any definition of the terms “vulnerable” or “impaired mobility”, the exception would be ambiguous and could be very broadly construed and give rise to uncertainty. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment as drafted. However, I acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the access needs of disabled people are taken into account in the operation of the prohibitions and I therefore commit to considering, in advance of stage 3, whether any further amendments may usefully be made to safeguard those needs.
20:30
Amendment 301, in the name of Jamie Greene, and amendment 302, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would exempt, respectively, taxi drivers or private hire vehicle drivers and community bus services from the pavement parking and double parking prohibitions. I am not persuaded that the needs of taxi and private hire drivers differ significantly from the needs of anybody else who needs to collect and drop off on streets where the prohibitions are in force. Accepting amendment 301 would create an unjustified and potentially very broad new exemption and would undermine the consistent application of the prohibitions.
I have somewhat more sympathy with amendment 302, which relates to community buses, but I cannot support an amendment that would permit those large vehicles to park on pavements, particularly given the damage that they might cause to the pavement in doing so and the safety and access problems that might arise. However, I am happy to consider before stage 3 whether community buses should be permitted to double park in limited circumstances.
Amendment 306, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to remove the requirement for a police constable to be in uniform when granting permission for a parking prohibition to be disapplied. I am concerned that removing the requirement for a police constable to be in uniform could create confusion and uncertainty among road users as to how a police constable can be identified and on what authority any direction is being applied. I therefore cannot support amendment 306.
Amendment 307, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to remove the requirement for persons parking on the pavement for the purpose of saving a life or responding to another similar emergency to be so parked for no longer than is necessary for that purpose. Although I acknowledge the need for flexibility in the provisions to enable drivers to respond to life-threatening emergencies, there is a need for proportionality in how even an exception of that kind is applied. The amendment would in effect allow a person who had parked on a pavement or double parked in order to respond to a threat to life to remain so parked indefinitely after the threat had been addressed. I consider that that goes a bit too far against the grain of the prohibitions, so I cannot support amendment 307.
Amendment 308, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to provide powers for local authority officers to allow pavement and double parking in circumstances in which they deem it to be reasonable. Although reasonable local authority discretion is a thread running through part 4, consistency and certainty are fundamental to effective enforcement and to gaining public trust in the fairness of that enforcement. Allowing discretionary powers for local authority enforcement officers to permit pavement and double parking in undefined circumstances would be far too subjective an approach and would threaten to seriously undermine the policy intent of a national ban and public acceptance of it.
Amendment 309, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to require the Scottish ministers to consult local authorities and other persons as they consider appropriate when modifying any of the exceptions in section 47. As the committee will be aware, the Scottish ministers ensured that all local authorities and interested groups were consulted via the parking standards group, which was set up during the consultation process on the parking provisions in the bill. The group is continuing to meet regularly to consider the parking standards guidance, and the Scottish Government is fully committed to that process. I am not persuaded that a statutory consultation duty would add anything to that well-established process.
As I mentioned at the outset, the many issues that are raised by the amendments in this group are important. I am grateful to members for their careful work in lodging them and for their contribution to the debate. However, for all the reasons that I have set out, the only amendments in the group that I can support are those that have been lodged by Mike Rumbles. If those amendments are pressed to a vote, I urge the committee to support them. I invite other members not to move their amendments in the group. If they are moved, I ask the committee to vote against them.