Official Report 519KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is evidence on the Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill. We have two panels giving evidence today: the Minister for Transport and Islands will give evidence first, and then we will hear from Sandra White, the member in charge of the bill.
I welcome Derek Mackay, the Minister for Transport and Islands, and Sharon Wood, policy officer in the asset management, finance and technical branch, Transport Scotland, Scottish Government.
Mr Mackay, do you wish to make an opening statement?
Yes, thank you. First, I can report—for Sharon Wood’s benefit as well as for the committee’s benefit—that we are working on a shorter title.
Thank you for the invitation to give evidence on the Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill. Sandra White has undertaken commendable work to develop a bill in a subject area that we all acknowledge is complicated.
Parking is subject to various acts and regulations. This member’s bill seeks to introduce clear prohibitions, while allowing for various qualifications and exceptions. Removing obstructions from our pavements to assist vulnerable groups sits well with our key strategic transport policy of improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of transport.
However, the Presiding Officer has issued a statement explaining that, in her view, the bill is outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That statement raised significant doubt as to whether any act flowing from the bill would be fully within the legislative competence of the Parliament.
The committee will have heard from local authorities about their concerns over operational issues, particularly in relation to enforcement. At present, only 14 out of 32 local authorities have decriminalised parking enforcement—DPE—powers, following the removal of traffic wardens from those areas in February 2014. In non-DPE areas, Police Scotland would still be responsible for enforcing the offences in the bill, as part of their wider powers in relation to enforcement of traffic offences. I am aware that a number of local authorities are considering the introduction of DPE, and my officials will work closely with those local authorities on the development of their applications.
The committee has also heard from some members of the public who have questioned the impact of the bill on roads in built-up areas. Some roads, particularly in built-up areas, do not have the space to accommodate the footway parking proposals, with residents potentially required to park their cars some distance from their homes, which could, in turn, displace other vehicles. That could give rise to some challenging traffic management issues for roads authorities.
It is also important that we sensitively acknowledge the town regeneration policies that are in place, so as not to discourage people from shopping in their local towns because of unduly restrictive parking requirements.
Overall, new legislation in this area needs to be aimed at both achieving the aims in view and enabling Scotland’s roads to continue to function effectively. Having considered the matter fully, I advise the committee that the Scottish Government supports the general principles of the bill, which align with our strategic transport policy. However, I make it clear that the Scottish Government is of the view that, should the Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill at stage 1, no further action should be taken by the Parliament on the bill until the legislative competence issues are resolved.
Following agreement with the United Kingdom Government, we are working to resolve the issues via the Scotland Bill. The intention is to introduce suitable exceptions to the list of reserved matters in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 in order to remove any doubt about legislative competence in the area. The precise form of the amendments that are required remains under discussion with the UK Government. However, it is extremely unlikely that any legislative competence alterations will be in force before the Scottish Parliament is dissolved in March 2016. Therefore, it is my strong preference that, while we work to resolve the legislative competence issues, the focus should now shift to the development of a Scottish Government bill, to be introduced in the next parliamentary session, once the legislative competence issues have been resolved. I will, of course, move more quickly if the parliamentary authorities and timetable allow, but that is the timescale that we appear to be working to.
In conclusion, I support the general principles of the bill but I am of the view that, until the legislative competence issues are resolved, no further action should be taken by the Parliament on the bill. Given the anticipated timescale, I believe that the most appropriate way forward is for the Scottish Government to progress a bill in the next parliamentary session, although, for the time being, we will continue to support Sandra White’s bill.
Thank you, minister. Is the lack of legislative competence in the area the reason why there is no Scottish Government policy memorandum on the bill?
There should be a policy memorandum—it should have been circulated.
The policy memorandum will be issued after this meeting. We had to get clearance for the comments that are in the memorandum.
That is not particularly useful for the committee, minister. Normally, we would have the policy memorandum in front of us. Why has there been a delay? Is that down to the legislative competence issues?
Can I explore that and get back to you, convener? I was not aware that you were not in possession of the policy memorandum, which I have cleared.
I would be extremely grateful if you would. It is always a matter of concern when the committee does not have details to hand.
You said that the Government is supportive of the general principles of the bill. Does that mean that the Government wants to see the bill go through the stage 1 process, even though it may not complete the bill process by the end of the session because we will not have legislative competence?
That is broadly correct. I think that it is important for Parliament to express a view. The Government is very interested in the committee’s views and we are supportive of the bill because it is based on important principles that many members have tried to further. The Government is keen to progress it. If the bill were to progress now, the Government would seek to amend it to make improvements at stages 2 and 3. As it happens, we do not believe that it will make that progress because of the legislative competence issues; nevertheless, we are supportive of the principles of the bill.
As a political point, if the Parliament, through committee scrutiny and a stage 1 debate, shows support for the bill, that will line up the debate well and will ensure that whoever happens to be in government after the election—indeed, whoever happens to be in Parliament in the next session—knows that it is an important matter that should be progressed.
We are supportive of the principles, but we would do further work at stage 2, if the bill were to reach that stage. However, we are quite open about the fact that we do not think that it will be able to make that progress because of the legislative competence issues. We can only go as fast as the Westminster parliamentary process will allow.
Does that help, convener?
It helps a little. Do you think that, by moving the bill through stage 1, we might put pressure on Westminster to ensure that the legislative competence comes here so that we can deal with the issue? As you have rightly pointed out, the bill has come before the Parliament in a number of guises and the principles in it have been pursued by a number of members, and there are folk out there who are concerned that we have not been able to move on the issues.
That is right, convener. As you know, the Government does not share the detail of legal opinion. However, there is doubt around the bill’s legislative competence—the Presiding Officer has set out a position in that regard. I have made it clear, since I was appointed as Minister for Transport and Islands a year ago, that we would work with the UK Government to resolve the issue, and the UK Government has suggested a way forward through the Scotland Bill.
There was potential for a section 30 order to be used, on which we were open-minded. We would like to move as fast as the legislative programme allows. Once we approve the bill at stage 1—assuming that we do so; it will go before the Parliament—if there is a great deal of cross-party political consensus on the matter, that will add to the pressure on the UK Government to legislate.
Even if the UK Government were to proceed in the fashion that it has suggested, with a debate followed by commencement, it appears that the work would take place after the current session of the Scottish Parliament is dissolved—it would commence by this summer. If the UK Government moves more quickly, we can respond more quickly. Officials have been in dialogue, but I have confirmed with the Secretary of State for Scotland that we are content with the approach that he will take to remove all doubt about legislative competence.
I recognise the Presiding Officer’s statement that the bill as introduced is not within the Parliament’s competence. It may be worth noting that, under the Parliament’s processes, the Presiding Officer cannot give a further opinion on the bill. That applies to circumstances in which legislation is initially within competence but is amended at stage 2 or stage 3 and becomes no longer within competence; in this case, it would apply if the bill were to be amended to come within competence.
Given the absence of an opportunity for the Presiding Officer to revisit such a decision, does the Government have a view on how Parliament might be informed of whether an amended bill would be subsequently within competence? Quite independent of whether the powers become available or not, the issue of competence, and Parliament having a view on that, would remain.
I have set out a course of action that helps to address the legal issues. If we asked two or three lawyers for an opinion, we would probably get at least two or three different opinions. It is fair to say that not all legal opinion is consistent on the subject. Given that we are talking about issues relating to fines, financial penalties and—potentially—criminality, it is important that all doubt is removed.
Although opinions can be offered, the clearest way to make progress is to have absolute legislative competence beyond all doubt so that we can proceed. The UK Government and the Scottish Parliament are in the same place on the issue, and such an approach would resolve any concerns that the Presiding Officer may have.
I am sure that the legal advisers are better placed than me to discuss the issue, but I can say that, although it is perfectly competent to have the debate and for the bill to make progress through Parliament, the legislative process could ultimately not be concluded satisfactorily without that clarity being provided.
I re-emphasise—because this is the first time that it has been outlined publicly—that the Scottish Government is giving a commitment that, if we are re-elected, we will legislate in this area. I am working on a cross-party basis to flag up to all members that we need consensus in Parliament. Any incoming Government may wish to legislate in this area, which is why the stage 1 debate and the committee’s work are very important. Even if we cannot proceed, we are lining up the debate well for early legislation in the next session of Parliament.
Sandra White has a question. Is it on the legislative competence issue?
Yes, it is. I want to pick up on what the minister said. The group of people with whom I have spoken commissioned legal advice from two different legal firms, which said that the Parliament had competence on the matter, and I proceeded on that basis. It was a bit of a blow to get the letter from the Presiding Officer, but I was informed that there could be a challenge if the bill was not seen as competent by the Parliament’s lawyers, although we had two separate pieces of legal advice that said that the bill was competent.
Okay. If no one else wants to come in on the issue of legislative competence, I will bring in John Wilson.
10:15
Good morning, minister. I want to try to move the discussion on a bit and debate the bill as presented. During last week’s evidence session, we heard from a representative of South Lanarkshire Council who implied that the current legislation could deal with many of the issues that the bill tries to cover. What is your opinion on that view?
Let me be frank: it depends on who you speak to. Some police officers would say that something was an offence, whereas others would say that the same thing was not worth pursuing. Police Scotland’s position is that elements can be enforced. For example, it is already illegal to drive on the footway. It is not necessarily illegal to park on the footway, but how does the vehicle get there if it is not driven on to it?
Some areas may require clarification, and I think that clarity in the bill will resolve that. There are matters of opinion and doubts, and the bill will help to clarify them. In relation to legislation, some matters rest with Westminster and some sit more comfortably with the Scottish Parliament—of course, we would like all relevant legislation to sit with us. Sometimes it is a matter of opinion.
Not all those issues are totally resolved through the bill because there will still be exemptions and reasonableness will still be deployed—I think that that is appropriate because some of this is quite subjective. I think that the bill will give us legislative clarity that certain things are unacceptable in relation to parking on dropped kerbs, double parking and parking on the footway, which will be prohibited.
We will also need to be very clear about definitions because people’s understanding of the terms “carriageway”, “footway” or “pavement” and so on might be different.
The answer to Mr Wilson’s question is that the bill brings more clarity to what is a complex area.
The evidence that we heard from Police Scotland last week compounded the problem. That evidence included a description of where the police would enforce parking regulations and the series of hoops that they have to go through to actually get a prosecution, whereas the witness from South Lanarkshire Council said that that council was able to take action almost immediately following the introduction of three notices.
I welcome your admission that some legislation is already in place and that this is really about how we interpret and use that. Surely using existing legislation could resolve many of the issues that the bill identifies, without the need for additional legislation.
No. I think that we need more focused legislation. As I indicated, I would want to refine some of the language in the bill if it were to proceed, which would bring greater clarity. In any event, we would intend to introduce guidance. To progress the matter, I would want to do more work with local authorities. I covered the issue around decriminalised parking enforcement in my opening statement. We have to address the issue of consistency across the country to provide stability and workability, and I would commission more work around that.
The bill also covers commencement and a run-in time. There are operational issues that would have to be addressed, some of which would be covered by guidance. Although there are local variations and local exemptions, we would need to do more work with local authorities and Police Scotland on the subject before implementation. I think that we are some way off from that.
I welcome your indication that you want to issue guidance to local authorities. Let me give the example that I gave last week of two towns in my own area, Motherwell and Hamilton, which sit side by side but which are in different local authority areas. North Lanarkshire does not have any traffic wardens but South Lanarkshire does. In implementing any legislation, or in any guidance that the Scottish Government issues, how do you ensure that an offence is dealt with equally across the board? At present, we have traffic wardens in one authority, but none in the other. Somebody could find themselves in a different parking regime after a five-minute drive down the road.
Indeed, but that matter is more for the member in charge of the bill to consider as part of the bill. I am saying that the message would have to be standardised. There would need to be an educational campaign and clarity in guidance, so that the measures could be properly enforced, but across the country enforcement would differ because there would be decriminalised parking enforcement in some areas and police action in other areas. There is also the question of the priority that a local authority attaches to enforcement. There are a lot of issues around the variability of enforcement.
We then come to the issue of our streets all being different. Are any two streets in Scotland exactly the same? Probably not. For example, what is appropriate or reasonable in relation to the size of the footway relative to the carriageway? There is a lot to consider in how the bill would be deployed, and further work and consideration are needed before adequate guidance, based on definitions, could be published. Some variation would be acceptable in applying the legislation at the most local level, but there would also have to be a degree of consistency and fairness around reasonableness.
To assist the public, arguably there would need to be signage or some other indication to show which law was in force. Again, how that would work requires further consideration. I say again that if the bill were to proceed or if the Government were itself to legislate on the issues in it, I would need to do further work with officials from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to ensure that the measures would be workable across the country. However, I am keen to express that, in principle, legislation is required.
During oral evidence, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland argued that a definition of all roads with a speed limit of 30mph or less would be more appropriate. It has been suggested that the bill excludes most A and B roads. What is your opinion on that? Why would A and B roads be excluded?
I am afraid that that is a matter for the member in charge of the bill. As I said, I am happy to look at the detail if the bill progresses. The bill is primarily a local matter, because it covers local roads. Sandra White can explain her intent further, but the bill affects mainly residential and local areas rather than, for example strategic roads. I would not want to get into that definition other than to offer my broad support.
I think that the consultation on the bill received more responses than most other members’ bills, which is a good and healthy sign, and various opinions were expressed. The definition is a matter for the member and I would be happy to return to it, but the issue that you raise is more about local roads than about strategic roads, and I will not get into definitions at this stage.
Okay. Thank you.
The minister may have ca’d the feet from under me. I was going to ask him about some of the definitions, because there are areas of the bill—I will cite three of them—where it is not clear what is meant. I will ask the member in charge about this later if I am permitted to do so.
First, it is unclear what a “vehicle” is. Section 2(1) refers to a “vehicle” but the definitions that are provided in section 7, on “Interpretation”, refer only to a “motor vehicle” as defined in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I am not sure whether the two are the same.
Secondly, it is not clear what “parking” is. There is no clear definition and no reference to other legislation.
Thirdly, it is also unclear what “stopping” is. Stopping is important, because vehicles will, in moving traffic and in congested areas, be stopping and starting all the time. It is clear, from a natural consideration of the matter, that one type of stopping is not going to be prohibited, but the position might not be clear for other types of stopping.
I wonder whether, if the Government were to pick up the bill, it would agree that further consideration might have to be given to those three—if not all—areas of definition.
I agree. With the best will in the world, it is clear from people’s lobbying positions—in how they have written up their notes and in their correspondence—that the understanding of much of the definition varies. Therefore, if we were to proceed, we would need a common understanding of all the definitions for the reasons that members have given. I have alluded to that in my statement and in my other comments. I am sure that the solicitors would all work together to give us that common understanding, which we could then stick to.
Like many members of the committee, I was a councillor, and, although we know the difference between a footway and the roadway as it relates to the overall pavement, that difference is not necessarily understood in a consistent way. Such definitions are important to the bill’s enforceability, and I would want to refine that issue if the bill were to progress. Again, those are matters for the member in charge, but I am comfortable with the principle of what the bill is trying to achieve.
Just for the record, with regard to the definition of “motor vehicle” I have a wee issue with pedestrian-controlled vehicles, particularly street-cleaning equipment, and non-motor vehicles such as four-wheeled wheelbarrows. Would they be allowed to be parked or not? There is a whole series of issues in that respect.
At this stage in the debate, I do not want to get into a discussion with anyone—but particularly not with Mr Stevenson—about technical definitions relating to each element of the bill. If it would assist the committee, we could produce our list of definitions as they relate to the bill, and that would perhaps form the basis of consistency. However, members are absolutely right to say that we must be clear and consistent about what we are legislating for.
The committee is always glad to have what some might call Mr Stevenson’s pedantry but what I will call attention to detail.
Good morning, minister. I am interested in the Scottish Government’s view on the balance that needs to be struck between the rights of pedestrians and the rights of motorists and car owners. Last week, the committee had a lot of discussion about the provision of alternative parking for car owners who live or work in areas that would be affected by the bill. We focused particularly on council and new-build estates where there is no parking at all or where the driveways are simply not big enough and residents have no option but to park on the pavement. What is the Government’s view on that situation?
I know of no specified formula other than the very good “Designing Streets” policy, with which I was more familiar as the Minister for Local Government and Planning. In new-build developments, there is a specified design that is more about good design than anything else, and there is no magic formula that sets out how close to their homes people should be able to park.
Nevertheless, the member is absolutely right that there is a balancing act in that respect. It is all about being reasonable. From a layperson’s point of view, is it reasonable for someone to park on the footway and totally block it for other pedestrians, wheelchair users and anyone else? No, it is not. It is hard to find an excuse for someone who does that sort of thing, particularly if it has been done simply for the convenience of getting to their own domestic property.
There is, therefore, a balancing act, and much of that would be covered in guidance. If there were to be prohibitions and exemptions, the guidance would specify the areas in which such parking would or would not be acceptable, to ensure that we struck the balance that Cara Hilton has touched on. As I have said, it is about balance; after all, every street is different, which means that a reasonable approach has to be taken. There will be obvious cases of totally inappropriate parking on the footway or types of inappropriate parking that block pedestrian or other forms of access.
However, I acknowledge the point that, in some streets and in some parts of the country, it is impossible to provide alternative parking provision and the resulting displacement might compound other problems. Again, it is all about balance. I accept the member’s point, but a clear message is being sent out to those who choose to park indiscriminately and unreasonably and who block access for those who have the right to walk along their footway.
Does that assist you?
Yes. That was very helpful. Thank you.
Do you have any other questions, Cara?
No, convener. I am just pleased that the minister alluded to “Designing Streets”, which was also mentioned last week. Does he agree that more needs to be done at the planning stage to build that type of provision into housing developments? That advice might be in place, but the new-build development that I live in has no parking, and I know that that situation is replicated right across the country.
I agree with the member. I have to say that the situation was fine when I was the planning minister; frankly I do not know what has happened since then. Please do not report that to Mr Neil—although he is probably watching.
He might well have some questions later.
At the moment, such policies are a material consideration in the planning system, which is as it should be. Accessibility, active travel and pedestrian priority in the hierarchy are all principles that we would encourage. In new builds, we have to be mindful of such things. It is very hard to retrofit communities with such facilities, so we must get the balance right.
10:30
Are you aware whether the planning review panel is looking at issues such as the designing of streets? I know that that is not in your portfolio.
I am not aware of that, but, if it is a root-and-branch review, which is how it has been described by the cabinet secretary, I am sure that it could touch upon that subject.
The committee may well want to bring it to the attention of the panel. We will get to that point later.
Thank you for your comments, minister. I will pick up on Cara Hilton’s point about displaced cars. If the bill were to progress, would the Government look at issuing guidance to local communities about working with access panels on where displaced cars could park when they could no longer park on the kerb?
The guidance would come in stages. There would be national guidance around how the policy should be implemented. As Sandra White has suggested, when those decisions were made, there would also be guidance about how the law should apply at the most local level, what streets would be affected and where exemptions might exist. Full community participation would be absolutely vital at that point in order to get the decisions right.
It is not like setting a national speed limit or a national law that applies consistently across the country in a broad-brush approach; rather, the policy must address local circumstances, as all members appreciate. It must be appropriate, reasonable and sensitive to the local area. Reaching the right decision will need more than just a roads engineer and a planner sitting in a room, listing the streets where the policy will apply; there must also be proper community engagement, and that engagement will feature strongly in the guidance. I have a note here that says that it will be an iterative process.
Minister, you said that, if the bill reached stage 2 or the Government took the proposals forward, you would lodge amendments or make changes. Can you indicate some of the areas that we have not yet covered where such amendments would be necessary?
Issues about workability, practicalities, terminology and driver education have been raised in the member’s consultation and in the committee’s evidence gathering. As the minister for transport, I would want to be reassured that all those matters had been addressed and that the proposals had been refined should the bill reach stage 2.
I would also need further engagement with local authorities. Although there is a collective opinion, concerns have been raised by individual local authorities. I would want to capture the criticisms of the bill and try to address those by refining the bill. The main areas of concern are consistency, education and reasonableness as well as the distinction between what needs to be legislated for and what would be more appropriate in guidance.
We are not at stage 2, so I do not have any amendments at the moment. However, should the bill get to stage 2, I will make comprehensive refinements to it so that there is absolute confidence in it and people will have no need to be alarmed that they suddenly cannot park anywhere near their homes. That is why we need to be a bit clearer about what exemptions there would be and what the local situation would look like.
As you would expect, convener, as a listening Government, we recognise that, if we support the bill, it should be refined in response to the outcome of your evidence-gathering sessions.
What do you have to say about the bill’s financial memorandum? How might that need to change, given some of the amendments that you envisage?
Some things are difficult to quantify. We have had experience of that before. We do not know the extent to which the powers would be enforced at a local level or how many more local authorities might have opted for decriminalised parking enforcement in, say, two years’ time. There are unknown factors and I would want a fuller understanding of those.
I know that a number of respondents have complained about a lack of resources to proceed with the measures in the bill, and I want to get a deeper understanding of that. Every year, the negotiating body for local government, COSLA, discusses finances with the Scottish Government and reaches a financial settlement. The Scottish Government’s practice is to fully fund any new legislative burden on local authorities, so a discussion would have to be had on that.
Last week, disability organisations raised the issue of dropped kerbs, and one witness defined a dropped kerb as a “technical crossing point” that had been installed in streetscaping. The concern is that there does not seem to be anything in legislation or regulation to protect dropped kerbs that have been installed to allow wheelchair users and users of electric wheelchairs to cross the road. Can the Scottish Government advise or give guidance to local authorities on what streetscaping has taken place and whether dropped kerbs have been installed for access, with regard to enforcement to ensure that dropped kerbs are protected for wheelchair users?
I am not sure what the question is, but I get the point. If the point is that we need more work done on dropped kerbs, I agree. Some dropped kerbs have been put in by individuals and some have been put in by the local authority, and different standards have been followed. Some have been put in with very formalised and clear standards, whereas some are more ad hoc and are not of the quality that we would expect. There is a question of whether standards should be enforced, and further work needs to be done on definitions and understanding.
Minister, it would have come as a bit of a surprise to some people when you said that you would support the principles of the bill at stage 1. However, you say that, if the current Government is re-elected and the competencies are devolved, you will deal with the matter at that point. What message do you have for the many campaigners out there who have had real concerns about the issue for a number of years? They have waited a fair amount of time to get a solution.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say these things. This is not a partisan point—Opposition members will understand that. The fact is that I cannot speak for the Parliament; I can only speak for the Government. That is why I said that the Government will give a commitment to legislate on the issue in the next parliamentary session if we are unable to do so in the current session. As I have outlined, it seems unlikely that we will be able to legislate in the current session because of the parliamentary timetable. However, if we could do so, the Government would be supportive of addressing the issues that have to be addressed and would support Sandra White’s bill.
I will say this for the first time publicly: if the bill cannot progress in the current session, this Government, if re-elected, will legislate, because that needs to be done. It needs to be done in a way that inspires confidence, compliance and clarity, which is why I will undertake work and commission Transport Scotland to do the necessary work and liaise with local government to improve the accessibility agenda. It is very important that we ensure fairness in our active travel priorities around walking, cycling and the accessibility agenda.
Some campaigners might be disappointed that legislation has not been passed in successive sessions of the Scottish Parliament, but never before has the Government committed to legislate on the issue if the member’s bill—which we will support—fails. I have acknowledged that there are some issues with how the provisions would operate and what the guidance on definitions might look like, but, if the Parliament and the committee agree that the bill should proceed, we can make that happen. The committee will report to the chamber and we will have a stage 1 debate. If the committee agrees that the bill should proceed, I will want to see consensus and that the Parliament can work together on it. It will have the Government’s absolute support.
I wish that the timescales could have been shorter, but we have been working with the UK Government to ensure that there is legislative competence. I am not criticising the UK Government; we are working in partnership to address the legislative competence issues, and legal opinion is divided on whether we could have legislated competently in the area. If it had been clear that we could have legislated, we would have been able to proceed. However, there is doubt, and, because the issues affect financial penalties and potential criminality, it is important that all doubt is removed.
I hope that we can inspire confidence that, although people may have waited a long time for the necessary legislation, the Government is supportive of the bill and wants to ensure that our footways and roadways are made even safer.
Minister, on behalf of the committee, I thank you for giving evidence to us this morning. Please ensure that we get the policy memorandum as soon as possible.
10:40 Meeting suspended.
Moving on to the second panel of witnesses, I welcome Sandra White MSP, the member in charge of the bill, and Professor Tom Rye, director of the transport research institute at Edinburgh Napier University.
Ms White, do you want to make an opening statement following what you have heard?
I would like to make an opening statement, convener.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to give evidence on what I and others think is a very important issue. I thank the many groups and individuals who have contacted me and have taken part in the consultation, with special thanks going to the clerks and staff who have worked so hard to get the bill to stage 1.
As the committee is aware of the history of the bill, I will not go into it in detail. Suffice it to say that it was started by Ross Finnie MSP in October 2010, taken up by Joe Fitzpatrick MSP in March 2012 and now lies with me. As the minister made clear, the consultation received 414 responses, one of the highest numbers for any member’s bill, and 95 per cent of respondents wanted the bill to progress.
10:45The bill’s intention is not to be punitive but to provide for guidance and education. It provides for equal rights of freedom of movement, so that everyone can get on with their lives in the way that you or I can. In some cases, even fit and able-bodied people cannot get along pavements and have to go on to roads, which is very dangerous.
With regard to street furniture, which the minister mentioned and which was also mentioned in some of the evidence, I can tell the committee that, in my Glasgow Kelvin constituency, the council has put in bollards, trees and other such street furniture, but cars knock over the bollards and trees and park between the bollards. It is not possible to move about easily on the pavements. If that is the case for people such as me, just think what it must be like for elderly or infirm people, people in wheelchairs, parents with children in buggies or blind people.
I will finish by saying that the situation not only is very dangerous but can lead to isolation. As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, which has just had an inquiry into loneliness and isolation, I know that there is a direct correlation between people being stuck in their houses and their physical and mental health. The bill is about education and equal rights of freedom of movement for everyone in my constituency and in Scotland.
You will have heard the minister’s comment to the committee that it would be best to deal with stage 1 and agree the bill in principle, even if there were no further movement on it in this parliamentary session. Do you agree? Do you think that that might give some consolation to those folks who have campaigned hard to get some of the matters resolved?
I agree with moving the bill on and having the stage 1 debate in Parliament, and I note the minister’s comment about the Government taking up the bill if we do not have time in the parliamentary session and things perhaps moving more quickly. I would certainly be looking for things to move more quickly, if at all possible, and for the bill to make progress. If the Government is not able to move quickly with the section 30 order and with speaking to the UK Government with regard to the Scotland Bill, I am happy to support the idea of agreeing the principles at stage 1 and picking the bill up again in the new session.
Last week, the committee heard evidence and had discussion on some of the exclusions. The bill’s definitions exclude most A and B roads and private roads, but from my own perspective—and I hope that folk will forgive my being slightly parochial here—Aberdeen is somewhat different, in that A roads go through the city. In fact, some of the worst footway parking problems are on A roads such as Great Northern Road in my constituency and, in Mark McDonald’s constituency, the same road leading to Auchmill Road. Do you think that, in hindsight, the bill should have included A and B roads and private roads? If it moves forward, should it include those roads?
I think that they should be included. Perhaps the omission is mine, because I had assumed that A and B roads were not affected by pavement parking.
I reiterate the point made in council representations and mentioned, I think, by the minister and other members that the issue is very localised. If there are problems in certain areas, such as the A and B roads in Aberdeen, they should be looked at specifically, and I would hope that there would be amendments at stage 2 to include not only A and B roads but private roads.
Okay. Does anyone else want to come in on those points or on anything else?
Just for clarification, Ms White, you have just tried to explain to the convener why A and B roads and private roads have not been included in the provisions. I know your constituency very well and the issues that it is facing, especially with the growth in the number of flats being built at the junction of Dumbarton Road and Byres Road in Partick and the parking problems that that is causing in the area. Do you think that, in hindsight, it would have been better had the bill referred to A and B roads and private roads?
As I have said to the convener, I think that, in hindsight, we should have included them. However, that kind of point is what giving evidence on the bill and having dialogue on it is all about. For example, your raising of the issue of the definition of dropped kerbs and crossing points has obviously made people think, and I think that there are definitions and other aspects that should be included in the bill.
You mentioned an issue in my Glasgow Kelvin constituency, and I know that, in reaction to problems in certain areas, Glasgow City Council introduced regulations for certain new-build flats that allowed no cars to park in the area. However, as you will appreciate, these concerns have been expressed and recommendations made by people not just in my constituency but throughout Scotland. As I have said, we are taking evidence and having dialogue on the bill to ensure that any concerns about omissions in the bill are dealt with through amendments at stage 2.
I do not know whether Professor Rye wants to add anything.
I just wanted to quickly add that in the part of Britain where there is a blanket ban on footway parking—London—A roads and B roads are included like any residential or other road.
How does that work in London? Does it work well?
In the early 1990s, I worked for London Transport, which is now called Transport for London. As I was working on bus priority at the time, part of my job involved travelling around London, particularly the south-west of the city, which has some of the highest levels of car ownership in the London conurbation. However, parking on the footway is not an issue, because where it is not permitted, it does not happen—people just do not do it. That applies to A roads, B roads and unclassified roads.
At that time in London, parking enforcement on certain main roads called red routes was the responsibility of the police, and parking enforcement in the rest of the city was decriminalised and the responsibility of civil enforcement officers—in other words, the local authority traffic wardens. However, there was no difference in the level of enforcement between the roads that were enforced by the police and the others.
That is very useful. Thank you.
I want to pursue the issue of definitions. We have been talking about the definition that is relied on right at the top of the bill in section 1 and which refers to
“public roads in built-up areas”,
excluding special roads. It might be useful to include in the interpretation section a reminder of the legal definition of special roads. In essence, they are motorways, but in Scotland, they include one A road—part of the A74. However, that is just a picky, definitional point.
Is that the A74(M)?
That is correct.
Now I am being the pedant, Mr Stevenson, but on you go.
I am just making the point for the sake of completeness. Because the road is maintained by a different company, it is classed separately from the M74, but let us not worry about that.
I have to say that it is not clear to me from the way in which the bill is written what a “vehicle” is. The interpretation section refers to the meaning of “motor vehicle” under section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 but that term, of course, covers only vehicles that are constructed for the carriage of passengers up to a maximum weight of 2,540kg. I imagine that the definition that you desire to use in the bill would be more broad reaching but would exclude, for example, pedestrian-controlled vehicles that are used for street cleaning. If the bill proceeds, do you intend to remove any doubt about what the term “motor vehicle” means by introducing a definition that makes it clear what is intended?
Ms White, do you want to have a crack at that?
I will attempt to.
Maybe Professor Rye can come in after you and tell us how the London legislation worked in that regard.
Stewart Stevenson always raises various issues, but, as I have said, that is what this conversation is all about.
Mr Stevenson is absolutely correct about the definition of “motor vehicle”. I have to say that I was not sure about the weight or how many people a vehicle would carry. With regard to cleansing vehicles, I must admit that, living in the merchant city in Glasgow city centre, I have never seen a cleansing vehicle parked up on a pavement. They are certainly used. We will consider the matter to see whether exemptions could be put in place.
The minister said that we would have to consider definitions before the bill went through stage 2, but, to my mind, the issue is motor vehicles that are blocking pavements, driveways and dropped kerbs so that people cannot get about. Stewart Stevenson might have seen cleansing vehicles parked up on a pavement, but I have certainly not.
You may, the next time that you walk up the Canongate in Edinburgh.
Rolls-Royce limousines, for example, exceed the 2,540kg weight limit in the definition of “motor car”, which moves them into the definition “heavy motor car” under section 136 of the 1984 act. I am just making a general point—I am not trying to bottom out the matter right now. I am sure that we would wish the definition to apply to large passenger vehicles of that character but not to exclude goods vehicles, which are covered by other definitions. There is a lack of clarity and it would be useful to have your commitment that you will take the matter up and pursue it.
I accept what Stewart Stevenson has said. I will not go into the impact of different cars; I do not have many Rolls-Royces in my area, but they do exist. I will certainly pick up on that point.
There’s nae many in the area that I stay in either.
Professor Rye, can you give us an indication of how London dealt with the definition?
I do not know the details of the London legislation sufficiently to say how it dealt with the definition, but it is extremely important that the definitions of “motor vehicle”, “parking”, “waiting”, “loading” and “footway” are consistent with the existing relevant legislation that obtains in Scotland, such as the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
That neatly moves us on to my second issue, which is that the bill does not directly define what “parking” is. I think that one can glimpse what is meant by “parking”, but one is uncertain in that the word “stop” or “stopping” is used in relation to parking at various points in the bill. I suggest that “parking” is probably where the vehicle has stopped and the driver is no longer in it. That converts having been stopped to becoming parked.
However, the bill appears to catch people who stop in moving traffic, because the definitions of “parking” that are provided implicitly appear to catch that as parking, and it does not seem to be covered by the exclusions. If Sandra White agrees, it might be useful if she were to indicate that she would consider a more precise definition of “parking” to make the underpinnings of the bill more robust and to allow us to progress it.
I accept Stewart Stevenson’s point. On another point, the bill is, as the title suggests, about double parking and parking on kerbs, and if we were to go outside and ask someone what they thought when they saw a car parked on the kerb, they certainly would not say that the driver was driving along the street. The intention is not to stop cars that are on the road. I will take that point on board and think about it.
11:00
I have been to lots of community council meetings, and everyone seems to be very much in favour of the bill. However, something that people mention as much as they mention double parking, but which is not in the bill, is the prevalence of advertising boards on pavements, and I wonder whether—
I think that I heard a sharp intake of breath there.
I know, but it is an important issue for people like me, who use a motorised vehicle. When we push A boards out of the way with our vehicles, people get really ratty.
Trust you to open up another can of worms, Cameron.
Cameron Buchanan has made a valid point. Local councils are responsible for street furniture. The prevalence of A boards and—when the weather is good in Scotland—tables and chairs outside cafes and pubs is an issue that I get in my postbag every other day. I have written to councils about the issue, which is to do with local planning. The bill does not address that problem and I doubt that it could be interpreted in that way, but perhaps the committee should consider the issue and take it up with councils, because, like pavement parking, it has been raised with me on numerous occasions.
At last week’s meeting, we heard from the Scottish Disability Equality Forum, the national body for access panels. You have already mentioned access panels; indeed, some problems with dropped kerbs arise because access panels are not statutory consultees and therefore are not consulted. A planning review is under way. Should access panels become statutory bodies to ensure that they feed in information in the way that community councils do? That might help with a lot of the problems that arise locally.
At local level, people want to have their say about the communities in which they live, and I think that it is imperative that local access panels become statutory bodies, particularly in the context of planning. I think that Cara Hilton mentioned the issue of planning earlier. Sometimes planners make building decisions without considering who lives in the area and thinking about how people with big buggies will get on and off pavements and up and down stairs, and the more that people can engage in the process, the better it is for everyone. Local access panels and community councils should have statutory status.
Further to what Cameron Buchanan said, I make the observation that section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines “invalid carriage” as a vehicle that is adapted for the carriage of someone and does not exceed an unladen weight of 254kg. In defining “motor vehicle” in the bill, we would probably want to exclude such vehicles, although as the bill stands it is almost certainly catching them.
Grand.
Professor Rye, you talked about your experience when you were working in London, where prohibition of pavement parking and enforcement stopped the problem. That is great, and it is what all of us want to see happen in Scotland.
I would like to know more about what happened. Did people go and park somewhere else? Did they stop using cars? Did households reduce the number of cars? In the real world, lots of people still need a car, more often than not; I know that lots of people do not have cars, but lots of families rely on a car to get to work and school and generally to support family life. What alternatives were found or provided in London?
The legislation in London to which I am referring was introduced in 1974; that was well before I was working there, so I cannot really comment on how people reacted when the ban was introduced. I can say, though, that, according to the 1971 census, there were parts of London with higher levels of car ownership than there are in many parts of Scotland now. Clearly, people were able to cope, but I do not think that exactly how they coped has been documented.
I apologise if that does not fully answer your question.
That is okay—and forgive me for not appreciating the timescales. I hope that I have not offended you by thinking that you were working in London in the 1970s.
It would be interesting to find out whether any research or follow-up was done at the time. It sounds as if the legislation has worked in London, and what was a very big problem—possibly an even bigger problem than what we have in Scotland—was addressed. If there are things to learn, it would be good to discover what they are.
We will try and get the Scottish Parliament information centre to find out whether there is any information on that for you.
We could not find any updated evidence, but I have a paper from the House of Commons library on on-street parking in England. It highlights some cases, but I believe that they are pre-1974. We can leave that paper with the clerks. I should also say that Lord Tope, who was a councillor in the London borough of Sutton in 1974, when the pavement parking measures were introduced, made a number of comments and speeches on the subject that were favourable towards what happened. Finally, for the committee’s information, Simon Hoare MP is sponsoring the Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill, which has its second reading in the House of Commons on 4 December—this Friday—and which seeks to ban pavement parking in areas of England and Wales.
As I have said, I can leave the House of Commons library paper with the clerk. It mentions the issues that I have raised and the forthcoming debate in the House of Commons on Friday. It may be of some help to see how that goes.
That would be very useful. We will get the clerks to circulate the paper to all members.
With regard to the London situation, it is important to remember that the London legislation permits exemptions, as the bill would. One sees those exemptions signed and marked in London streets, and they allow either four wheels or two wheels of a vehicle to be parked on the footway within the marked areas.
The minister spoke of striking a balance between the needs of pedestrians and those of car owners. The way that the legislation is used in London, with exemptions being made in certain areas with very high parking pressures and real problems with street space, shows how that balance is being struck there. I would expect the same to happen here, too.
I have a follow-up point for Professor Rye. What is the impact of public transport in London? London has a number of modes of transport—trains, the underground, buses and trams—that we do not have in many towns and cities in Scotland, and we often hear that, if there were a better public transport system, people might use their cars less to get about. Any time I go down to London and speak to friends there, they say that, on most days, they do not use a car; they use public transport to get around.
But if they use their cars less, they will all be parked.
There are two responses to that. We have to bear in mind that, when the ban was introduced in London in 1974, the areas to which I was referring that had higher levels of car ownership than many parts of Scotland have now are in outer London. Although accessibility to public transport in areas of outer London is perhaps not as poor as it is in lots of parts of Scotland, it is nothing like what one experiences in central London. In addition, the inner London public transport system has been developed to a far greater extent compared with what it was in 1974. One cannot say that the ban worked in 1974 only because London has a better public transport system or had one at the time.
I wonder whether Professor Rye could reference the statement that he has just made about higher car ownership in London. The figures that I have—and this is absolutely from memory—are 34 per 100 houses in London, 45 per 100 in Glasgow and 55 per 100 in Edinburgh. Which cities had he in mind when he talked about higher car ownership in London?
I am talking about car ownership in London in 1971 compared with car ownership in Scotland now. The comparison—and the distinction that I am making—is between when the ban was introduced in London and when a ban might be introduced here.
That is helpful.
That view is based on census statistics from 2011 and 1971, which I could forward to Mr Stevenson if he wishes.
Thank you for your evidence this morning. There has been some discussion about the current planning review panel. Do you intend to write to the panel about some of the issues that have arisen, Ms White?
Absolutely. We have considered the role of the review panel. There are lots of things to consider with regard to not just this bill but the issues that Cameron Buchanan has raised. As a local MSP and the MSP in charge of the bill, I will be wearing two hats when I write to the panel.
If you do not mind, convener, I would like to raise one point that has not really been mentioned.
Sure.
It is about clarity. The police have said that the bill will bring greater clarity. The minister mentioned resources for local councils, and we really have to bear in mind the amount of repair work that local councils have to carry out, not just to the pavements but to underground electricity cables and so on. As I have said, the proposal is not punitive, but educational. Although, in the long term, it is much more beneficial for people to get about in a way that satisfies the Human Rights Act 1998, I should point out that the measures will save councils money in the long term, too.
Thank you very much. I now suspend the meeting until a quarter past 11.
11:11 Meeting suspended.Previous
Subordinate Legislation