Subordinate Legislation
Ayr Road Route (M77) (Speed Limit) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/67)
M8 Motorway (Junction 10 Westerhouse Slip Roads) (Speed Limit) Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/68)
Glasgow Renfrew Motorway (Stages I and II) (Speed Limit) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/69)
Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/89)
Road Works (Inspection Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/91)
Road Works (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/92)
Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (Fixed Penalty) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/98)
British Waterways Board (Forth and Clyde and Union Canals) (Reclassification) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/118)
Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act 2006 (Extension of Time for Land Acquisition) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/126)
Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Act 2006 (Extension of Time for Land Acquisition) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/127)
CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (Amendment) Order 2011 (SI 2011/234)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of 11 negative instruments. Those instruments are set out in the agenda that has been circulated to members, which is available on the Parliament website. No motion to annul any of the instruments has been received. I invite members to comment on any of them.
I would like to comment on SSI 2011/89. Paragraph 2 of the Executive note on the regulations states, under the heading “Policy Objective”:
“A reform of the Blue Badge Scheme in Scotland is necessary to reflect the significant social changes that have taken place over the past 40 years”.
The document is therefore quite significant, and I find it surprising that there is no equality impact assessment, for example. I would have thought that changing something that has been around for 40 years is a major thing to do.
Paragraph 4 of the business and regulatory impact assessment says:
“We wish to ensure that all applications”
for blue badges
“should be assessed in the same way in order that the process is consistent”,
and Department for Work and Pensions definitions are referred to. The people involved would be eligible for the higher rate of disability living allowance, for example. The focus is on applicants who are “unable to walk” or are “virtually unable to walk”.
Over the page, the note deals with the public consultation, which involved questionnaires. I have a copy of one of the questionnaires with me. Question 2.3 in it says:
“Do you agree that we should extend eligibility to those with severe forms of autistic spectrum disorder and very advanced forms of dementia?”
I know that some people are concerned about the language there, especially in relation to autism, but that is not my point. My point is that those who responded to the consultation agreed by a majority of two to one that the focus should very much be on eligibility based on “inability to walk” or “virtual inability to walk”. However, questionnaires such as the one to which I referred raise expectations among some people with autistic spectrum disorder who are perfectly able to walk from a physical point of view but may not, for reasons to do with their complex needs, be able to make a consistent transition to other means of transport.
17:00
My concern is that the consultation gave rise to the impression that the eligibility criteria may indeed include people who are not physically disabled per se, but have other complex needs. However, paragraph 13 of the Executive note indicates that the majority of responses agreed that the focus should be on “inability to walk” or “virtual inability to walk”, which are the DWP criteria and which I think was the real intention in the first place.
I do not think that this was a model consultation. It is too late for me to move a motion to annul, but I know that my comments are now on the record. It is up to colleagues to decide whether the committee should add a rider or whatever to those comments.
The consultation was a major piece of work that was, on the face of it, extensive, but there should not just be, in effect, a show of hands for criteria such as those I have described. In this case, that means that by a majority of two to one people with an interest in physical disability have, in effect, outvoted people who responded in good faith to the possibility that some people with autism, for example, might be able to access a blue badge. I think that I have made my point.
Do other members want to comment on the issue?
Charlie Gordon is right about equality proofing. Surely that should automatically be done for something as important as this. However, it is not apparent from the papers that it was done. Equality proofing should be standard.
The question on autism is interesting, given that for the first time the national census, which is being done before the end of March, will attempt to assess the numbers of people who consider that they would fit that definition. So, the question on autism was not a perfect question, but it is a first. Given the long debate about the issue, I can understand why the question was asked in the consultation about blue badges. It is an interesting subject; we could do with a further explanation of it from the Government, because I suspect that it is trying to provide an equality gloss to the matter that goes beyond the DWP definition.
On the point about people being outnumbered, quite a number of people might respond in the census to questions about autism, but that would not necessarily mean that they would form the majority of those who have disabilities. Asking such questions is a complex area, so I think that guidance would be helpful in that regard.
If there are no further comments, I suggest that we produce a short report based on the comments that have been made on the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 and invite the Government to respond as soon as possible given the timescale we are on.
Are we agreed that we do not wish to make any formal recommendations in relation to the 11 instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you.
Meeting closed at 17:04.