Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Agenda item 2 is consideration of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. We welcome to the meeting Jackie Baillie MSP, Robert Marr and David Cullum. We also welcome Stewart Stevenson, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, and Government officials Bill Brash, team leader in the Government's transport strategy division, and Andrew Brown, senior principal legal officer and solicitor in the transport, culture and procurement division.
Section 1—Duty to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles
Amendment 1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 7, 4 and 5.
I have the pleasure of moving this group of amendments, which make certain that the terminology of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is reflected in the bill and that the meaning of "advisory disabled street parking place" excludes spaces made enforceable by an order under section 35 of the 1984 act.
Amendments 4 and 5 ensure that the definitions of "advisory disabled off-street parking place" and "advisory disabled street parking place" reflect the terminology used in the 1984 act.
Amendment 5 clarifies the definition of an advisory disabled street parking place, to ensure that enforceable spaces made under either section 35 or section 45 of the 1984 act are excluded from the definition. That ensures that the definition, and thus the requirements of the bill, attach only to parking spaces that are advisory and not to parking places that have been either specified or provided for use by disabled persons' vehicles under sections 35 or 45 of the 1984 act.
The bill's definition currently uses the word "specifying", which is appropriate for the reference to section 45. However, section 35 of the 1984 act uses the terms "provided" and "makes provision as to". While the bill's use of "specifying" conveys the meaning intended, the word "providing" more appropriately reflects the language of the 1984 act in consequence of the new reference to section 35.
Amendment 4 makes a similar terminology change, substituting "providing" for "specifying" in the definition of an advisory disabled off-street parking place, because of the reference to that definition in section 35 of the 1984 act.
Amendment 1 is a consequential amendment, members will be pleased to hear, which follows from the changes to the definitions.
I am grateful to you, convener, for allowing me to lodge a manuscript amendment to section 3. Amendment 7, which is entirely technical, follows as a consequence of the changes to definitions proposed in amendments 4 and 5 and keeps the bill's language consistent with that of the 1984 act. I am very grateful to Government officials for pointing out that the amendment would be desirable to keep the bill's terminology consistent throughout.
As members will have gathered, these are essentially tidying-up amendments.
I move amendment 1.
Although we feel that a reasonable interpretation of section 1 would apply the duty to those disabled parking places provided under section 35 of the 1984 act as well as to those designated under section 45 of the 1984 act, the amendment puts that beyond any doubt. We are therefore happy for the committee to agree to this amendment, if it so chooses.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3—Certain orders under the 1984 Act
Amendment 7 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 agreed to.
Section 9—Designation of a temporary parking place where a request has been made under section 5
Amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is in a group on its own.
The phrase
"advisory disabled street parking place",
which is used throughout the bill, is defined in section 14 as one that
"is marked or sign-posted as being for use only by a disabled persons' vehicle and … which is not subject to an order made under section 45 of the 1984 Act specifying that it may be used only by a disabled persons' vehicle."
Such a space is not enforceable. However, one of the bill's main objectives is to ensure that all disabled persons' parking spaces can be enforced.
Section 9 creates an exception to the enforceability rule by allowing local authorities to create a temporary advisory parking place while they process a request for a street parking place by a qualifying person. The section ensures that a parking place, albeit an advisory one, can be provided quickly while the necessary order-making processes are undertaken. As soon as those processes are completed, the temporary parking place will be replaced by a permanent enforceable one, unless of course it is determined that the provision of any parking place is inappropriate for whatever reason. In that case, it will be removed.
Section 9(1) provides for the creation of the temporary parking place and amendment 2, which is purely technical, replaces the current description of the temporary parking place with the phrase
"advisory disabled street parking place",
which is used throughout the bill.
I move amendment 2.
Given that amendment 2 is a technical amendment designed to ensure that phrasing throughout the bill is consistent, we are entirely content for the committee to agree to it.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 to 12 agreed to.
After section 12
Amendment 3, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, is grouped with amendment 6.
I have very little to say on amendment 3, except to make it clear that it seeks to ensure that, before Jackie Baillie's bill comes into effect, the widest possible public information campaign takes place. After all, people will have to understand exactly what this legislation does and the changes that it makes if they are to avoid being penalised. Similarly, disabled people who wish to use these parking places will have to have the widest possible knowledge about their availability. The necessity of such an approach was forcibly brought home to me by my constituents, and is the reason why I have lodged the amendment.
I move amendment 3.
I have a question about the plans that appear to be inferred. It seems to be implied that the Government should spend money on an information campaign. I support the bill's aims, but I am not clear how such costs would impinge, if at all, on the overall costs of the proposals as shown in the financial memorandum.
That is a matter for the Government and those who produced the financial memorandum. The intention of my amendment is to ensure that a public information campaign takes place.
I am conscious that, in dealing with other legislation, many members have made robust arguments about the wisdom of public information campaigns. I am all in favour of providing information to the public, but I wonder whether the amendment would create difficulties for the bill that do not need to be created.
I do not think that it would. More difficulties could be caused by not providing proper information about the bill's impact to disabled users of car parking spaces and those who currently unfairly use designated spaces that they do not have the right to use. It would be wise to undertake a public information campaign.
I am glad that Patricia Ferguson lodged amendment 3, because there must be a public information campaign and local authorities in local areas and, of course, the national Government should be responsible for progressing it. I am not sure that the matter should be included in primary legislation, but it is important that Patricia Ferguson has drawn the committee's attention to the need for a public information campaign.
I am not overly sure how the proposal would impinge on the financial memorandum. If it has a cost element, would a fixed price be put on future public information campaigns? I would prefer to keep the matter open ended and leave it to the Government's best judgment. There are other issues to do with the financial memorandum and local authorities' costings, and we should not add further uncertainty. If the minister gives an assurance that there will be a public information campaign, I would not feel the need to agree to the amendment; that would be unnecessary in view of the ends that it is trying to achieve. However, I thank Patricia Ferguson for lodging it.
I share Bob Doris's scepticism about the requirement to include the proposal in the bill. The information that is put into the public domain should be at the discretion of the Government and local authorities. If there is to be a public information campaign, it seems to me that it should be orientated towards getting people to respect parking facilities for disabled people generally, as opposed to dealing with the specifics of the new legislation in order to try to modify behaviours and tackle the abuses that have been highlighted in evidence that has been taken on the bill.
Obviously, I am also sceptical because of the costs that would be involved. We know that the infamous home reports public information campaign has cost £700,000. I think that the proposer of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill, Jackie Baillie, estimated that total expenditure on it would be less than £2 million. We should consider the extravagant scale of home reports. The Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill is, of course, much more important than the useless home reports, but total public expenditure on it could soar.
The bill will extend the enforceability of bays or convert advisory bays into enforceable bays. Enforceable parking bays and their associated signage are already well understood. The number of enforceable parking bays will significantly increase once the bill's provisions come into effect, but publicity material relating to a bay should be exhibited on the spot to demonstrate that it is enforceable. The information that members of the public need—which, as I say, needs to be on the spot—is that they cannot park in the bay unless they have a disabled badge. Therefore, there will be quite a lot of public information at the specific locations of the bays, which is how things should be. An enforceable bay is not a new concept. Members of the public are familiar with enforceable bays, so we do not need to tell them that disabled parking bays are enforceable; rather, we need to ensure that disabled parking bays are properly identified as such at all the new locations.
We support the sentiment of Patricia Ferguson's amendment 3. It is our intention to ensure that appropriate publicity is given to the provisions.
Some members' contributions have drawn out the fact that there are two facets to the issue. Mr McLetchie, full of festive cheer as ever, suggested that when one approaches a disabled bay it is marked and is clearly reserved for the use of disabled people, so perhaps in that context publicity is not required. Nonetheless, there will be a general requirement to make people aware of the change in the status of disabled parking bays and to reach disabled people so that they understand what is happening. To that end, it is my intention that in developing our communication strategy we involve the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland. It is important to say that any publicity campaign that we undertake—I give the assurance that we will undertake such a campaign—would, of course, be focused on the social unacceptability of people abusing bays that are set aside for people who have a range of disabilities.
Comments have been made about the financial memorandum, which is the member's responsibility rather than the Government's. The Government is, of course, responsible for the financial resolution, which gives force to the provision of finance. Ms Baillie and I are continuing to work on some aspects of the information in the financial memorandum. I am reasonably content that we will bottom out some of the issues.
I invite Ms Ferguson to seek to withdraw amendment 3, which I do not think is necessary. I hope that she will take in good spirit and good faith my commitment to undertake appropriate public information campaigns and step back from the need to write into the bill a duty on Government to run a public information campaign, which would be a somewhat unusual step.
I welcome the intention behind Patricia Ferguson's amendments 3 and 6. I have mentioned in the past the desirability of a public awareness campaign, because enforcement needs to be coupled with general education, and that is certainly the intention behind those amendments. That said, I am delighted with the minister's commitment to run a general information campaign and to involve others in shaping it, because Governments have a duty to facilitate public awareness. They currently do so on issues ranging from domestic abuse to drink driving to telling people—if they are of a certain age, convener—that it is time for them to come and get their flu jab. However, a duty on Government to run a public information campaign is not ordinarily in a bill, so I hope that, in light of the minister's commitment, Patricia Ferguson is minded to withdraw amendment 3 and not move amendment 6.
To answer Mr McLetchie and Mr Doris's questions, I had deliberately not indicated a financial package—I wanted to leave it to the Government to decide what would be appropriate.
The minister's comments are reassuring. I was aware when I drafted the amendment that the financial memorandum refers to an awareness campaign, but it is helpful that the minister has spelled out exactly what, in his mind, that would be. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw amendment 3.
Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
Section 14—Interpretation
Amendments 4 and 5 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15—Short title and commencement
Amendment 6 not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. I thank everyone for their patience.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—