Disabled Parking Spaces
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1235, in the name of Duncan McNeil, on space invaders. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the difficulties experienced by people within local communities who have secured disabled parking spaces outside their homes; deplores the fact that these spaces can become a focus of conflict within communities where people seek to use such a space, despite not having a disabled parking badge; notes with equal dismay the figures published by the Baywatch campaign group that show that over 20% of disabled parking bays in supermarket car parks are being used by non-disabled drivers; recognises that the current legal position, which distinguishes between courtesy parking spaces and those supported by traffic regulation orders, creates problems for people with disabilities who need to rely on a designated parking space outside their home; appreciates, in the case of car parks on private land such as those belonging to supermarkets, the frustration of disabled drivers where the store management appears reluctant to enforce its own parking policy; acknowledges that, for their part, some store managers are not clear about their powers to compel drivers to move from specially designated bays; notes that this situation leaves supermarkets vulnerable to future legal action under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended); therefore believes that the Scottish Executive, local authorities and all relevant agencies should work together to develop an awareness campaign to highlight the rights of disabled people and to emphasise the unacceptability of harassing those who have been allocated disabled parking spaces, and considers that, if a satisfactory solution cannot be found, the possibility of legislating to address the problem and giving local authorities the appropriate enforcement powers should be examined.
I thank Johann Lamont for working with me to secure the debate. As members know, the motion is a composite; it brings together two motions that Johann Lamont and I lodged on the difficulties that disabled drivers face. I suggest that, unlike the products of some meetings on composites, which Johann Lamont and I remember fondly from days of yore, this motion enjoys widespread support.
I thank members from all parts of the chamber who supported one or other—or, indeed, both—of the previous motions and who have supported the successor motion. Although I would not presume to speak for Johann Lamont, I think that I am safe in saying that we are grateful to all the members who have made time to attend the debate.
I will focus my speech on the problems that disabled drivers face in private car parks and on the work that the Baywatch campaign has done. Let me give an example. A young woman who is the primary carer for her mother came to me at a surgery in Inverkip in my constituency. She told me that the highlight of her mother's week was her outing to the shops in Greenock—as soon as she was back in the house after one trip, she was looking forward to the next. That is a simple pleasure, I am sure members will agree, but it is made almost impossible to enjoy through selfishness and indifference. Fresh from the young woman's Herculean efforts to get her mother up and dressed, they get to the shops only to find the disabled parking spaces filled with the cars of perfectly able-bodied people. That is unacceptable, unless sheer bone idleness is counted as a disability.
When disabled drivers and their carers make representations, they get a shrug from the car park attendant or warm words, but no action from the store management. That is not a clever move. Turning a blind eye could leave stores facing legal action under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—indeed, they are vulnerable to legal action now, not just in October when the additional rules come into effect.
As every member here tonight knows perfectly well, the case to which I have referred is not an isolated one. A survey conducted by the campaign group Baywatch shows that the rate of abuse rose from 18.5 per cent in January 2003 to nearly 21 per cent in January 2004. In other words, more than one in five disabled parking bays are being used by non-disabled drivers. Although we might not like to admit it, we in Scotland are the laziest and most selfish of the lot. We abuse the system at a rate of 27 per cent, whereas in Wales only 23 per cent of bays are dishonestly occupied and only 19 per cent of bays are abused by the far more considerate English.
A survey of more than 800 car parks that belong to the big four supermarkets throughout the United Kingdom showed that in more than a third—37 per cent—of stores disabled people were unable to park in a designated space because of abuse by non-badge holders. All supermarkets have seen an increase in abuse levels. People who complain to stores say that the response they receive has worsened, with only 30 per cent saying that stores responded well to complaints, compared with 32 per cent in 2003.
What can be done? First, the anger and frustration of disabled drivers and their carers must be recognised, as must the severe impact that the abuse of disabled parking bays has on their quality of life. Secondly, I ask for the minister's help in getting all the interested parties round the table to discuss the powers that are currently on the statute book, how they can be used and by whom. Thirdly, will the minister assure me that, if those steps fail, we will examine the possibility of extending the powers of local authorities to allow parking attendants or environmental wardens to enforce parking policies in private car parks? It is sad that we might need to stop appealing to people's better nature and to start appealing to their pockets, but if that is what it takes to make it game over for the space invaders, that is what will have to happen.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I am grateful to all the members who signed my motion and that of Duncan McNeil. I am glad that he is more amenable in applying his compositing skills nowadays than he was in the old days in the Labour Party, but that is bitterness from times past.
Our motions deal with designated parking spaces and the disregarding of the needs of people with disabilities. Before going on to the substance of my speech, however, I will simply mention two related issues that need to be considered—the blocking by cars of step-down pavements and the abuse of parent-and-child spaces at supermarkets, which can cause a lot of difficulties.
The misuse of designated parking spaces and the abuse of people who have been deemed to be entitled to disabled parking spaces reflect the discourtesy, antagonism and intimidation that too often is the experience of ordinary people in our communities. In demanding action on the matter, we reinforce our commitment to the creation and sustenance of safe communities in which people can go about their business free from harassment and intimidation. We should not see the issue as an isolated one; we should see it in the context of action against bullying and intimidation in all its forms.
I will focus on designated parking bays outside people's homes, many of which are courtesy bays that the local authority deems to be appropriately placed. Those spaces often do not have traffic regulation orders attached to them, not least because of the nature of the process that is required to establish such orders and the cost of enforcement. As someone who requires a bus bay to park in, I must confess that it had never crossed my mind that an enforcement procedure might be required. In my innocence, I thought that, if a person was deemed to be entitled to a space, they would simply be allowed to use it. I have been shocked by examples not only of spaces being used by people who do not have a disability, but of people who are entitled to spaces being abused, insulted and intimidated by those who resent their having such a space.
It is sometimes argued that, because the system for securing a space is weak, that somehow justifies abusing anyone who has one. Fair enough—if the system needs checking, that should be done, but the fact that some people might be abusing the system does not justify berating others in the street. People with disabilities should not have to negotiate their rights on the street. Some people feel that those who have secured a space have somehow got one over on everyone else and have won a privilege, but the reality is that no one aspires to a courtesy parking space or a blue badge—they are not a privilege, but a recognition of need. As the mother of a disabled daughter said, if people want the parking space, they can have the disability that goes with it.
Clearly, there is a particular problem in parts of our cities where parking spaces are at a premium, which can be used as a rationalisation for selfish behaviour. Of course, by definition, areas in which there are more cars than spaces are the very areas where disabled spaces are important. If an able-bodied person cannot park beside their door, all that happens is that they need to walk a little further, but if disabled spaces are taken up, that is much more of a difficulty for people who have mobility problems. Those who seek to rationalise their behaviour need to be confronted and told that the central selfishness of their actions is simply intolerable.
What action should we take? As the motion says, we need a hard-hitting, in-your-face campaign to challenge people's laziness and self-justification with clear messages about the consequences for disabled people of their actions. However, as Duncan McNeil said, a campaign is not enough; it needs to be backed up with enforcement. As members will be aware, in other aspects of policy, I am in favour of persuading first and taking hard action afterwards, but we must recognise that there should be consequences. I am all in favour of winning hearts, but I will settle for hitting pockets.
Members have been pursuing the issue for some time. I seek direct assurances from the minister that he will not simply reiterate the current position, because that position is unacceptable. I urge him to confirm that hard and creative thinking will be done to address what is a serious problem for people with disabilities. The existence of the problem diminishes us all in a society that claims to be tolerant and fair.
As is customary, I congratulate Duncan McNeil and his colleagues, particularly Johann Lamont, on the motion. It may be composite, but it is apt and appropriate that we should discuss it. The motion raises broader issues of disabled access, although it focuses on one specific issue with which there is an on-going problem. People might suggest that, in the grand scheme of the affairs of state, the issue is not important, but the Parliament must be judged not only on its work on major statutes, but on what it does on a variety of matters that impact significantly on people's day-to-day lives. Many disabled people, or carers for disabled people, suffer substantially as a result of the problem.
I agree with many of the points that have been made. The issue is part of a broader problem with the orange-badge scheme and other systems that have been introduced. There is a perception that many badges and spaces are obtained fraudulently and that there is on-going abuse. When we speak to organisations that represent the rights of disabled people and their carers, such as Capability Scotland, we find that the reasons behind that perception usually boil down to anecdotal evidence: somebody has seen people who are fit and able-bodied, who have all their limbs and who appear perfectly normal, coming out of vehicles that have been parked in disabled parking spaces. That ignores the fact that those people could be carers or could have a disease that does not necessitate the use of a wheelchair or any other form of assistance, but that restricts their movement or ability to walk, so that, although they may appear outwardly healthy, they are incapable of walking significant distances. Such perceptions are a cultural problem.
The points that Duncan McNeil and Johann Lamont made are correct and it is important that we should discuss the matter. As the minister will doubtless say in his response, we must decide whether to deal with the matter simply through education or whether we need to introduce specific legislation. That matter will have to be debated. Political leaders will have to give a signal that the abuse of disabled parking is unacceptable. However, if the individuals who carry out the abuse will not learn the lesson, will not listen to others and are not capable of understanding the difficulties that the disabled community faces, the matter may have to be dealt with by legislation. That is a matter of balance and the minister will doubtless refer to it in due course.
Duncan McNeil mentioned the difficulties for organisations such as supermarkets that do their best to cater for customers with disabilities who wish to park. Johann Lamont also made the good point that it is not only disabled parking bays that are abused; the provisions made for people with young children are also abused. That issue is just as important as the abuse of disabled parking bays and it causes equal difficulties. I understand the difficulties that many combines and supermarkets will have in deciding whether it is their job to participate in enforcement and whether they wish to lose custom by plastering cars with "Don't park here" signs or whatever else other organisations, such as the University of Edinburgh, do to those who, to their cost, are recalcitrant and abuse the system. Many retailers will make that judgment call and decide that enforcement is not necessarily in their commercial interest.
That is why it is important that the topic has been raised. It should be made clear that people are given disabled badges only after a great deal of consideration and that the badges are not granted on a whim. The badges must be respected, because they allow disabled people to participate in actions that we view as basic and normal. If people abuse disabled parking, society should say from the top down that such behaviour is unacceptable and will be addressed.
It is a matter for the minister to decide whether we should consider legislation. That judgment will need to be made on the basis of the statistics that groups such as the one that Duncan McNeil mentioned are taking. If the abuse is not being addressed, we will need to consider extending the powers of the authorities that can enforce the system, because it is becoming clear that many organisations will not self-enforce. The judgment is whether we can achieve cultural change through education or whether we will have to extend the powers of those who can act to address the abuse.
Once again, I congratulate the drafters of the composite motion. It is important that we should get the message out that the abuse of disabled parking spaces is antisocial behaviour and will not be accepted.
I too welcome the composite motion from Duncan McNeil and Johann Lamont, and I suspect—although I am not certain—that I should declare an interest as a blue badge holder. I am not certain whether I am the only member who has a blue badge, because, as Kenny MacAskill said, somebody might have a blue badge without our being aware of it, because disability often cannot be seen.
Not long after I was elected as a councillor in Edinburgh in 1994, I became involved with the campaign to get the City of Edinburgh District Council to recognise disability on the street and to get people and the council to recognise that people with disabilities had real problems.
I remember that the lady who first approached me and prompted me to get involved in the issue used two crutches and had great difficulty getting into a car. She lived in the basement flat of a tenement and it was absolutely impossible for her to get parked. Afterwards, once we managed to persuade the council to adopt a scheme—there are now 500 designated spaces across Edinburgh—and she was able to use her disability pass outside her door, she said that life had changed for her. The space meant that she could go out and come back home more than once a day. Previously, when she went out in the morning, she sometimes had to wait for over an hour after she came home to find a parking space outside her door.
I asked the City of Edinburgh Council about the matter yesterday and found that there does not seem to be too much abuse of the scheme that it is running. Traffic regulation orders govern what I call yellow boxes. The white boxes, which are the ones that I have just been speaking about, are not governed by any kind of regulation.
On some occasions, I have been keen to bring the issue home to drivers. Often, there are no spaces left at a location, despite the disabled parking signs on the road. On one occasion when I went to the Royal Lyceum theatre, I found that, of the six spaces available, four were occupied by non-disabled drivers, with the other two occupied by cars driven by disabled parking badge holders. I immediately telephoned the police and then went into the Lyceum. When I came out, all four of the spaces that had been occupied by non-disabled drivers were empty. I took some sort of perverse pleasure in knowing that those four drivers were about to face a fine of £135. That is the direction that we need to go in.
The new blue badge scheme, which applies right across Europe, is a great scheme. I have a blue badge and I have used it in different countries. There is usually no abuse of the scheme in those countries, where disabled parking spaces are left free. I agree that the situation in Scotland is not good. I am surprised that only 20 per cent of spaces are abused, which is what I think Duncan McNeil said that Baywatch found. In my experience, such abuse seems to take place much more often than that.
My local supermarket has only four spaces for disabled people, despite being one of the busiest supermarkets in the United Kingdom. When I want to park in one of those four spaces to shop, I often find that they are all full. Mostly, the drivers who have parked there are not disabled. The problem is that people then have to go and see the manager and ask him what he is going to do about the situation. Managers have a real reluctance in that regard, because they give the matter a low priority—however, it is not a low priority for the disabled driver who is trying to get into the space. Managers do not want to get involved because they do not want the conflict and to have to face up to people, who then abuse the staff. However, if people who have parked in the parking bays are not abusing the member of staff who tells them to get out of the bays, they are abusing the disabled driver who is asking them not to park in the space where the disabled driver wants to park. The issue is one of changing people's habits.
The motion mentions private land. At many large supermarkets or shopping complexes, such as the one at Straiton, some disabled spaces are not in yellow boxes, and traffic regulation orders do not apply to them. Local authorities are responsible for the land, however, so they should enforce the correct use of the white spaces. Unfortunately, local authorities have serious problems with traffic regulation orders. They are reluctant to impose traffic regulations on all such spaces, and I can see that that is a problem for them.
Please come to a close now.
I repeat the question that Kenny MacAskill asked: what are we going to do about the situation? My researcher discovered that a spokesman for the Department for Transport said that the department was still waiting for a suitable bill in which to include the desired powers. I urge the Scottish Executive and the Minister for Transport to consider the issue seriously. We need to address the problem and to solve it for the thousands of people around Scotland who are just trying to run their own lives, like all the able-bodied people in the chamber.
This is the only debate in which a blue ticket could have got you that amount of extra time, Mr Pringle.
I congratulate Duncan McNeil and Johann Lamont on raising this important issue of the difficulties that disabled people experience in relation to parking spaces. I offer congratulations to the Baywatch campaigners, to Disability Now and to the various disability organisations that have placed pressure on politicians such as us and on others to act on the present situation.
There is clear as well as anecdotal evidence of disabled people being challenged when entering a disabled parking space if they are not wheelchair users or have a hidden disability, to which Mike Pringle referred. Non-disabled people sometimes challenge their right to park there, because if a non-disabled person cannot spot a disability at first sight, they do not think that a person can be disabled. It is a shameful situation when disabled people are denied access to their parking bays, and even when bays are available, they can still be subjected to verbal abuse or harassment.
The root of the problem is that society refuses to make space for disabled people generally. I will therefore place the issue of disabled parking spaces in the wider context of disability prejudice and discrimination. Members will all be aware of the report, "Hate Crime Against Disabled People in Scotland: A Survey Report", which the Disability Rights Commission published recently and which is extremely worrying. The report's definition of attack covers verbal attack, such as taunts, name calling, threats and intimidation; spitting; physical attack, such as hitting, pushing, shoving and kicking; theft; damage to property; and harassment on the street. Some 31 per cent of the disabled people surveyed who were the victims of hate crime experienced attacks at least once a month. What a context in which to set the particular harassment of disabled people that we are talking about.
Nearly half the disabled people—47 per cent—who responded to the survey said that they had experienced hate crime because of their disability. Respondents described feeling scared, embarrassed, humiliated and stressed by the attacks, the bulk of which are carried out by strangers. People in all categories of disability experience attacks. That includes people with mobility problems who are not in wheelchairs; people in wheelchairs; people with visual impairments and blind people, representing 23 of the respondents; and people with hearing disabilities—which are completely invisible disabilities—representing 17 of the respondents. In our supermarket car parks one is at risk if one has a hearing disability, because uncontrolled traffic moves around, and the further that those people have to walk, the more they are at risk. It is really shameful that 63 per cent of respondents to the survey who have learning difficulties and 82 per cent of respondents who have mental health problems—who do not fall within the scope of the motion—reported regular harassment.
Hate crime is a significant problem for disabled people in Scotland and has a major impact on their lives. Despite the evidence that hate crimes against older people and disabled people and gender-specific hate crimes are serious problems, the Executive rejected my amendment to legislation last year to give minorities further protection. However, it has set up a working group and the end of the consultation period was last Friday. I look forward to the Executive making legislative proposals that might take into account what is happening to disabled people in relation to their parking spaces. I call on the Executive to launch a campaign to challenge prejudice and emphasise that society will not tolerate such behaviour. I strongly urge the Executive to launch a public awareness campaign to tackle that unacceptable prejudice and behaviour.
I, too, welcome the debate secured by Duncan McNeil and Johann Lamont, which highlights an extremely important issue. It is surprising that the issue was never raised with me during my 11 years as a councillor on Aberdeen City Council or during my past year as an MSP. I wish that I could say that that reflected the good nature of north-east folk, but I do not think that that is the case.
It is clear that there are two separate problems. One is that of parking in spaces that are allocated to disabled people by councils either outside their homes or in council car parks and the other is that of indiscriminate parking in designated spaces within privately owned premises such as supermarkets.
Today I was in touch with Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to ask what the current situation is with parking areas for which they are responsible. Aberdeen City Council has 800 residential disabled spaces. As we know, those are courtesy places that other motorists are asked to leave clear, which means that they are unenforceable. No record is kept of how often that system is abused, although I am sure that it is abused from time to time. Aberdeenshire Council has 138 residential spaces for the disabled and further reserved spaces in 10 council-operated car parks. The council's spokesman said that relatively few problems were encountered with those spaces—certainly far fewer than the 20 per cent figure that was quoted for problems at supermarkets. Aberdeen City Council also has 23 disabled places in city car parks in which blue badge and green badge holders can park for free. A further 24 places are kept under council buildings for the shopmobility scheme and another 22 are kept in the city centre for green badge holders, who are the more severely disabled. Between 260 and 270 penalty tickets are issued per year to unqualified users of the spaces in all those car parks. That figure is significant, but it does not present as major an issue as does the abuse of disabled parking at supermarkets and similar locations.
In the Aberdeen area, council-controlled disabled car parking works reasonably satisfactorily. It is monitored as far as possible and fines are issued to those who abuse the parking spaces. I do not have figures for the private sector in the area, but my own observation and anecdote suggest that selfish and inconsiderate parking is increasingly prevalent at large retail premises. I see no reason to dispute the Baywatch campaign's 20 per cent figure but, like Mike Pringle, I wonder whether the actual figure is higher.
It is unacceptable that disabled spaces are taken up by able-bodied drivers, most of whom have given little or no thought to the hardship and distress that they cause to deserving people. I do not hesitate to support the proposal in the motion that all interested parties, including the Executive, should work together to increase awareness of disabled people's rights in the first instance and, if the problem continues, to consider empowering local authorities to enforce the proper use of designated parking facilities.
I, too, congratulate Duncan McNeil and Johann Lamont on the motion, because it is important to discuss such matters in this place. Johann Lamont said that an in-your-face campaign might be the way forward.
Three or four years ago, I was in my car in my constituency listening to Radio 4 broadcast a programme that was in your face. People who were parked in disabled parking bays in supermarket car parks, but who should not have been, were interviewed. That they were parked where they should not have been was pointed out to them and they were asked to move their cars, but not one would do so. We heard answers such as, "Why should I? I'm shopping here like anybody else, so I can park wherever I like."
On the strength of that, in November 2001 I lodged a motion about disabled drivers and supermarkets. The motion praised what Asda, Safeway and Tesco were doing to encourage people not to park in disabled parking spaces, and what they were dong to tackle the problems of selfish drivers who park in those bays. I had hoped that we would not need another motion that said the same thing in 2004.
Duncan McNeil's part of the motion goes further than my motion did—it recognises that the legal position creates problems for people who have disabilities. Johann Lamont said that problems also arise when people park in parent-and-child bays. Members who have been councillors will know that another problem crops up when a driver who is not disabled drops off a disabled person at school or work and parks their car in a disabled parking bay. The badge is for the person, not for the car but I can understand why that situation is difficult to police. We had serious problems with that in Glasgow. People argued long and hard that they should be allowed to park in a disabled parking bay because they had been driving someone who was disabled—albeit that they were not doing so at that moment.
Duncan McNeil and Mike Pringle said that when supermarket staff ask people who are not entitled to park in disabled spaces to move, they are usually met with verbal abuse. That was what I found when I spoke to Asda, Safeway and Tesco in 2001. We should not kid ourselves. Nowadays, we normally walk away from people who are verbally abusive, so we cannot blame staff for not pursuing the matter. On the other hand, we should ensure that supermarket managers and staff are aware of the powers that they have, as Duncan McNeil said.
Only last week, a young couple parked in a clearly marked disabled bay in a street as I was walking past. I thought that perhaps they had not noticed that the bay was marked, although it was clearly marked. When they got out of their car and walked off, I called after them, "Excuse me. You've parked in a disabled parking bay." To say that they gave me two fingers would be to put it mildly. A word was said that I am not allowed to say, otherwise I will be Toshed.
Critics of the Parliament—of whom there are many—will ask why we are discussing the issue in Parliament. I would ask why we should not. Among other things, we are here to defend rights and to help those who cannot help themselves.
The use of disabled bays by those who should not use them is selfishness at its worst. Duncan McNeil said that if we need to legislate, we should do so, but what an indictment of our society that would be.
I agree with Trish Godman's closing remarks—I have witnessed more than one incident of such spaces being used. Recently, I used a parent-and-child space and saw people alongside me making use of such spaces, who were not parents and who had no children in or near their cars. I have seen what goes on. My mother has a disabled badge and I know that some incidents at disabled parking spaces are disgraceful. Humanity can be seen at its worst—at its most selfish and greedy—in such situations.
That most supermarkets are now making parking spaces available for disabled people and parents is good, but there are still significant shortages at some supermarkets. Mike Pringle highlighted some of his frustrations in that respect.
Disgraceful things happen. Wheelchair users who can use only the lift in a particular shop or shopping centre can be seen being denied access to that lift because of able-bodied people walking straight past them. Young mothers with buggies or prams can be seen in similar situations. People must challenge their consciences and they must be challenged to be more considerate. Such people are, in effect, preying on the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society. There are parking spaces and rules to try to support people with disabilities and to make more equal an unequal world. If Parliament or I, as the Minister for Transport, have any opportunity to champion the cause of the disabled and of taking tougher action to enforce such parking spaces, I am prepared to consider what must be done.
Duncan McNeil—who, with Johann Lamont, is to be congratulated on lodging the motion—challenged me earlier to try to pull together individuals and organisations who have an interest in the matter and to do more. I am happy to say that I will do exactly that and will try to approach supermarkets, local authorities, disabled users and disabled users' groups to discuss what more can be done with Baywatch to give the issue a higher profile.
However, more than that will be required. We can advertise from now until the cows come home and we can urge people to behave more responsibly. That will be effective with perhaps 90 per cent or 95 per cent of people, but there will be a core of 5 per cent who—because they are selfish—simply will not respond to all the urging, advertising and highlighting of problems. As other members have said, such people will not respond positively if they are challenged, whether by supermarket staff or by passing MSPs. I suppose that, at the end of the day, supermarkets exist to make profits from selling their goods rather than to deal with such difficult situations, but they could be encouraged to work with disabled groups and to think about ways of doing more.
One of the problems is that traffic regulation orders can be costly and time consuming to put in place. The Executive supports strongly the use of traffic regulation orders by local authorities. We should make it clear that local authorities can put in place traffic regulation orders in respect of supermarket car parks, but it is not done because supermarkets do not ask for it and local authorities do not regard it as being a priority. That would be one possible way ahead; if it were done, the Executive would support it strongly.
Road traffic regulation orders are given statutory status by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which is legislation on a reserved matter. To try to amend the regulations to make them more straightforward and give local authorities blanket authority to introduce them in supermarket car parks would require amendment of that legislation. Finding solutions will not always be straightforward, but I am happy to approach the UK Government on the issue if that is what is required.
The blue badge scheme is a devolved matter. So far, we have tried to have an integrated UK-wide scheme, but if we were to regard changes to that scheme as a priority, I would be willing to consider introducing such changes in Scotland.
It has been mentioned that some of the parking spaces outside people's homes are often courtesy spaces that are not covered by traffic regulation orders; the same is true of spaces in supermarket car parks. The co-operation of the public in ensuring that those spaces are not used by people other than blue badge holders is important, and in many communities the space outside an individual's home is respected. Nevertheless, that is not always the case, and there can be fierce arguments between neighbours about such spaces. I believe that we will, in time, have to do more legislatively to ensure enforcement. Under civil law, owners of private car parks can fine drivers and remove their vehicles if they are determined to take that course of action; however, many supermarkets do not wish to take such action against individuals who are their customers. Clamping by supermarkets and others is not allowed under the law in Scotland.
I agree that the Baywatch survey, which shows that more than 20 per cent of disabled parking bays in supermarkets are being used by drivers who are not displaying blue badges, highlights a big problem and a major concern. That is one of the reasons why I would be prepared to approach the major supermarkets for their ideas on how the problem can be overcome. There was an early positive start from the supermarket groups and early enthusiasm for the matter, but something needs to be done to refresh the momentum and to get focus back on the issue. Increasingly, people—particularly disabled people—feel that they are facing an uphill struggle.
The Executive has been working directly with Baywatch to identify ways to improve public awareness. Following consultation with the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, we are in early discussions with councils with a view to carrying out pilot schemes that will examine the disabled parking problem and test possible solutions. If, following this evening's debate, members of Parliament want to suggest possible solutions, or if they know of disabled groups that can suggest ways ahead, I will be happy to put those suggestions to the group that I intend to pull together.
I pledge to everyone here tonight that I am prepared to write to the supermarkets, to disabled groups, to local councils and to others. If members believe that there are individuals with expertise in the subject who should be involved, I would be pleased to receive that information. It is time we started to campaign to raise the profile of the issue and gave people some hope that action will be taken.
We have already introduced new legislation in Scotland. As recently as 1 January 2004 we gave police, traffic wardens and local authority parking wardens the powers to inspect blue badges. Those powers were aimed at tackling the problem that has been aired this evening: abuse of the scheme by able-bodied people who are using badges that are not their own, or who are forging or tampering with badges. Amazingly, all those things happen; people forge, or tamper with, blue badges.
I sympathise with the concerns of all the MSPs who have raised the issue and I am grateful to the two members who lodged the motion. It has never been my ambition to speak in a composite motion debate but I have spoken in one now—it could not have been on a more important issue. I assure members that the Executive will continue to take the issue seriously and, following today's' debate, that we will do something about it.
Meeting closed at 17:46.