The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10783, in the name of Dennis Robertson, on the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill.
16:42
It has been a great privilege for me to have been able to take forward the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill as a member’s bill. I would like to begin by inviting members who believe that they might not get an opportunity to participate in the debate to feel free to intervene on me if they have a specific question.
The Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill is an empowering bill: it will empower our people with disabilities to lead full and fulfilling lives by enabling them to exercise their right to use the blue badge to which they are entitled to find legitimate parking spaces in our towns and cities.
I am very grateful to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for scrutinising the bill at stages 1 and 2. I believe that the scrutiny that it undertook was fair, transparent and just. It considered in great depth questions that many people have been asking for quite some time. Why are we only now trying to ensure that people who have a blue badge can use it in a manner that gives them the freedom that I mentioned?
At stage 2, Inclusion Scotland lodged some amendments, and I am grateful to the committee for scrutinising them and giving them a great deal of consideration. I think that the conclusion was that, during the consultation process, people with disabilities believed that proceeding to enact the bill was the right and proper thing to do.
The consultation allowed me to listen to people with disabilities across Scotland. In the consultation meetings that we had in Aberdeen, Glasgow and here in Edinburgh, people with disabilities and organisations representing them were afforded the opportunity to ask important and appropriate questions about what was being proposed to ensure that we took forward what the bill was intended to achieve.
Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which introduced what was then the orange badge, people with disabilities were for the first time given concessions with regard to parking rights. However, it quickly became clear that the system was open to abuse. People came up with counterfeit badges, badges were being openly transferred, and third-party misuse was rife. It was felt that the legislation needed to be tightened up, and steps in that direction have been taken throughout the years. I now believe that the current badge system is robust, and, because of the unique number that each badge has, there should be little or no opportunity for fraudulent behaviour or copying.
In fact, the badge’s unique number is very important, because it will enable those who look at it, whether they be the police, traffic wardens or other local authority representatives who are charged with enforcing the system, to find out the badge’s legitimate owner. If they suspect that a badge is being misused, they can run a check. If, for example, the person using the vehicle is in their early 20s and the badge has been issued to someone in their 80s, the people who enforce the system will have every right to approach the person in question and ask whether the badge is legitimate or whether it is being misappropriated.
It is already illegal to use a badge that should have been returned because, for example, of the owner’s death, or to use a badge that has been lost or stolen, so people must be made aware that such actions are criminal offences. Indeed, it is only right and proper that people with disabilities themselves take some responsibility for their blue badges. During the consultation process, it became very clear that many people who have a blue badge were not aware of the rules and regulations about their use. One of the biggest complaints that we hear is that people think that third-party misuse is okay because the person who is using the badge is, say, going to the shops on behalf of the person with the disability. Of course, that is not the purpose of the badge, but if people with disabilities think that that sort of thing is okay, that suggests that we need to think about educating those people about the use of badges.
During the consultation process, we decided that it would be in the best interests of people with disabilities to set up two working groups. Those groups include representation from Police Scotland, local authorities and people with disabilities, and we are looking at producing for those who are issued with a blue badge something that will be an easy read that will make things clear and which will give, say, the top 10 tips for its use.
My thanks go to people with disabilities because, without the consultation process and their guidance, we would not be at the stage that we are at today.
Why do we need the bill? We need it because people think that it is okay to park in disabled parking spaces without a blue badge. As I said, people also think that third-party misuse of a blue badge is okay, although it is not. We as a society should not tolerate that. We should look at the impact of such misuse on people with disabilities. When someone misuses a badge, they do not just take a parking space; they also deny a parking space to someone with a disability. When that person is denied a parking space, they might have to return home and might not be able to do what they went into town for, whether that be leisure, pleasure or business—it makes no difference. People need to understand that they are not just taking a parking space that was available; they are denying a parking space to someone with a disability who is looking for one.
Just the other week, someone said to me, “I know it’s wrong, but I was in a hurry—I was going to be late for work. I couldn’t find a parking space, so I just parked in the blue badge space.” Such excuses should not be acceptable to us. They are not acceptable to me and I do not think that they are acceptable to the Parliament. I sincerely hope that we will hear other examples this afternoon that show why we need to pass the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill be passed.
16:52
I am pleased to support Dennis Robertson and to commend him for the work that he has undertaken in developing the bill.
I thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for considering the bill and the evidence from the agencies with an interest in the blue badge scheme’s operation—particularly disability groups, which Dennis Robertson mentioned.
The bill takes a number of steps to strengthen enforcement powers for local authorities when dealing with blue badge misuse. It will allow the confiscation of badges that are no longer valid or which are being misused by third parties; make the use of a cancelled badge or one that should have been returned to the issuing authority under the blue badge regulations an offence that sits alongside the existing statutory offence of misuse of a blue badge; allow local authorities, should they choose to do so, to use plain-clothes officers who are carrying identification and authorisation to inspect and confiscate badges; and introduce an important requirement for local authorities to have in place a review process for applicants who have been refused a blue badge.
On the surface, elements of the bill might appear punitive. However, its aim is to protect the rights of disabled blue badge holders and it responds to calls from badge holders for better enforcement of the scheme. Concerns have been expressed—primarily by Inclusion Scotland—about the confiscation of badges from third parties and the use of plain-clothes officers, but Dennis Robertson has been thorough in his consideration of and consultation on the issue. He has sought to protect badge holders by ensuring that all valid badges that have been confiscated will be returned to the badge holder as soon as is practicable.
In turn, local authorities want to ensure that badge holders can use their badges, whether as a driver or a passenger, for the intended purpose and within the scheme’s rules. The scheme provides street parking concessions to assist badge holders to live independent lives.
In response to the concern that Inclusion Scotland raised that plain-clothes officers will cause fear and alarm to badge holders or that such officers might be impersonated for fraudulent purposes, I agree with the conclusions that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee reached in its stage 1 report. Non-uniformed council officers already operate in a range of areas across Scotland without the difficulties that Inclusion Scotland suggested. The intention behind the bill is that non-uniformed officers will improve enforcement of the blue badge scheme by carrying out surveillance and gathering information and evidence on the systematic abuse of blue badges.
It is worth bearing in mind that someone misusing a blue badge or someone using a blue badge that is not rightfully theirs can save many thousands of pounds a year in certain parts of the country. Abuse of the scheme often involves the use of a person’s badge by a friend, family member or carer for their own benefit but it can extend beyond that. I understand that there is also a relatively lucrative trade in forged badges. The lure of free parking is a temptation that some people cannot refuse.
The bill also extends powers to the police and to traffic wardens to confiscate badges. I am happy to say that we are working with local authorities and Police Scotland to provide the police with access to the blue badge national database, which means that they will be able to check the status of blue badges anywhere in the country.
The bill is designed to fit in with existing powers and practices. Dennis Robertson has not been working in isolation. As we heard, he has been working closely with two working groups that have representation from local authorities, Police Scotland and third sector organisations to ensure that the bill translates and can easily work alongside current processes.
The provisions will be supported by guidance that will be developed by those multi-agency groups to address the requirements of the legislation. The guidance will also take into account the need for sensitivity and proportionality, which concerns were expressed about at stage 2.
Dennis Robertson’s work has been the catalyst in identifying a need to raise awareness of the blue badge scheme’s rules and regulations among badge holders, their families, carers and the wider public. I am pleased that that work is being progressed through those working groups.
The intention is to identify ways to clarify the purpose of the blue badge scheme and the impact of misuse on disabled people. I am sure that local authorities and the third sector will assist in getting across the messages about the scheme to the wider public.
I am pleased to say that Transport Scotland has commissioned work to test the understanding of blue badge holders of the proposed top 10 tips for using a blue badge. The tips are intended to act as an aide-memoire for badge holders, their relatives and carers on the dos and don’ts when using a blue badge. That concept was supported—perhaps even initiated to some extent—by the Local Government and Regeneration Committee.
Although the bill is primarily about increasing enforcement powers in practice, it will also send out a strong message to those who might think about using someone else’s badge for their own gain. I hope that it will make them think again about doing that. Misuse of a badge should be not only illegal but socially unacceptable.
Each time a blue badge is used for anything other than the purpose for which it was issued, not just one badge holder but many are prevented from getting on with their lives because they are prohibited from accessing the parking concessions to which they are entitled.
I thank Dennis Robertson for his work so far. The Scottish Government is very supportive of the bill.
16:57
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, and I congratulate Dennis Robertson on the progress that he has made so far. I know how much hard work goes into a member’s bill and I know how hard Mr Robertson must have worked, even with Government support, to get to this stage. I hope that his hard work is paid off with the passing of the bill. I am sure that it will be, since Labour is supportive and Labour members will be voting in support of the bill at decision time.
We welcome the bill’s main objective to protect the rights of blue badge holders. We recognise that misuse of blue badges must be tackled because it can lead to blue badge holders not being able to access a parking space when they need it—and they need those spaces more than anyone else—and to a reduction in revenue for local authorities. Misuse also contributes to a public feeling of animosity towards badge holders when people see blue badges being used fraudulently.
We continue to seek assurances from the Scottish Government that it will work with its multi-agency group to ensure that blue badge holders are properly educated on how their badges can be used so that disabled people who inadvertently misuse their badges are not penalised by the bill’s provisions. I welcome the minister’s comments on the advice and guidance that will be given to genuine blue badge users.
We look to see that local government in Scotland will be properly supported and financially resourced to implement the bill’s provisions, in particular in relation to enforcement. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is relaxed on the financial impact of the review of provisions and it is comfortable with those measures.
Can local government officers enforce in places such as supermarket car parks or private car parks where there might be an abuse, or can they do so only in public places? I am curious about that, because I do not know the answer.
My understanding is that private operators would need to come to some sort of agreement with local authorities or the police to enforce the provisions in a private area and that the proposals apply only to public car parking spaces.
The bill is designed to strengthen some of the enforcement aspects of the current legislation and ensure that there is a statutory review in order to ensure that people who are entitled to a blue badge receive one and that people who use a blue badge are legitimately entitled to it.
At stage 1, I said:
“This bill follows Jackie Baillie’s Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (Scotland) Bill, the intention of which was to prevent disabled persons’ parking places from being occupied by people who are not entitled to use them, by making disabled parking bays enforceable and ensuring that enforcement action”
against those who use them without a blue badge
“could be taken.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2014; c 31210.]
Sandra White’s proposed bill on responsible parking quickly followed. Sandra White is not in the chamber, but I recall her being frustrated that Dennis Robertson’s bill had overtaken hers in the parliamentary process. I am sure that she will have been in touch with the Minister for Parliamentary Business about that. Her bill aims to allow freedom of movement for all pedestrians by restricting parking at dropped kerbs and on pavements and double parking. That affects disabled people, as they may find it difficult to negotiate wheelchairs on pavements or across roads if the way is blocked by a parked car.
To me, those three pieces of legislation complement one other well. Combined, they will go a long way towards making our towns and cities much more accessible to people who have a disability.
The proposed powers in the bill will be a welcome addition to local authorities’ powers in tackling blue badge misuse and its impact on genuine users, as long as they are supported financially to enforce the powers. In particular, local authorities will have the power to cancel a badge that is no longer held by the person to whom it was issued to combat badges being passed on to other people. As the minister said, that seems to be quite a lucrative trade. The savings that someone could make by parking in Glasgow city centre, for example, run into thousands of pounds. Local authorities will welcome that power.
As I said at the outset, we support the bill. We will support it in the vote, and we look forward to its becoming an act and improving the lives of genuine blue badge holders across Scotland.
17:03
I should start by redeclaring an interest as a blue badge holder. As a blue badge holder and a fellow MSP, I reiterate my congratulations to Dennis Robertson on bringing forward the bill and I express my whole-hearted support for it.
To respond to Christine Grahame’s question about supermarkets, there cannot be parking enforcement there because the ground is private, but it is hoped that the word “shame” will come into things and that the public will eventually realise that what happens is simply not acceptable. However, I am afraid that there is nothing that we can currently do about private parking spaces.
In the earlier stages, I outlined why I supported the bill. It brings a much-needed improvement in the administration and enforcement of the blue badge scheme as well as wider recognition of its importance. It is crucial that any update to the scheme brings tangible benefits to blue badge holders without placing undue burdens or legal concerns on them. The bill strikes that balance.
I strongly support highlighting the reliance of blue badge users on the scheme to freely carry out everyday tasks, as well as the need to close the gap in perception between those who believe that occasional misuse is acceptable and legitimate users who greatly depend on its benefits being available.
I highlighted previously a number of finer points that had yet to be discussed adequately in the bill’s early stages, including the issues of non-uniformed enforcement officers, penalties and the powers of confiscation. Amendments covering those issues were lodged and, although later withdrawn, led to constructive discussion, and I am pleased to say that I continue to support the bill in its entirety.
A range of views were expressed on the role of non-uniformed enforcement officers. Along with others, I was lobbied by Inclusion Scotland. It expressed the view that enforcement officers should be uniformed. However, we reached agreement in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee that the bill’s provision for non-uniformed enforcement officers would benefit the scheme and could be implemented smoothly.
The main issue is to pass a bill that strikes the balance between the most effective way of enforcing the legislation and showing—this is very important—an appropriate level of sensitivity to blue badge users and their personal circumstances. We rightly focused on how officers would be identified to users and how assurances could be given to organisations such as Inclusion Scotland. The committee was reassured that all officers would carry identification cards. The bill therefore strikes that balance.
That leads me on to a similar point with regard to penalties. The Law Society of Scotland highlighted concerns over the inclusion of a criminal strict liability offence for using a badge once cancelled and, in doing so, it used the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut analogy. However, the committee also considered Police Scotland’s views. It raised strong points in favour of the bill’s existing penalty provisions. Our task was to ensure that the bill struck an ideal balance between delivering improvements to the scheme and protecting its users. Fortunately, the views of Police Scotland prevailed.
On that point, it was mentioned that penalties imposed after unintentional misuse could hurt vulnerable users. Although an amendment motivated by such concerns was lodged, we were reassured that a person could be found guilty of an offence only if a level of knowledge or intent could be proven. Despite that, it is apparent that the enforcement of the legislation will require local authority officers and the police, where appropriate, to exercise their duties with a good deal of care and sensitivity.
Although we were agreed that in clear-cut cases of fraud we expect the perpetrator to be prosecuted, we would all expect discretion to be shown in the more complex cases that will undoubtedly arise. The bill allows for such flexibility and will minimise incidents of innocent misuse through clearer communication to blue badge holders. The proposed 10-point card will answer any questions in that regard. For example, the current instructions are too complicated and everyone who receives them—me included—simply flings them in the drawer.
For similar reasons, it is important that we consider carefully the implications of any new powers granted to the enforcement officers. With that in mind, we had a necessary discussion on the extension of powers to confiscate badges. Although a fellow committee member lodged an amendment to limit the proposed powers to non-valid badges only and not third-party use, it was agreed that the existing powers would substantially benefit genuine users, because abuse would be discouraged and parking spaces would therefore be freed up. Furthermore, reassurances were given that badges would be confiscated only for justifiable reasons and that valid badges would be returned within a maximum of 14 days, which is also important.
In previous debates, I touched on funding, which is an issue that is necessary to consider. However, the bill is proportionate in its resource requirements, and it will be manageable to enforce. The sensible decision against establishing an external review process is an example of that.
I am pleased to note that the bill’s implications have been discussed extensively and properly considered. As I have highlighted, the main consideration throughout has been to ensure that the ideal balance is struck between delivering scheme improvements and protecting its users. The bill achieves that balance, and it will bring benefits to the genuine blue badge scheme users, including myself. As a result, I am delighted to support the bill.
Before we move on to the open debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 5.50 pm.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]
Motion agreed to.
17:09
Like others, I congratulate Dennis Robertson on bringing forward the bill, which I am sure is going to be successful at 17:50.
As a bill, it is perhaps a return to the way in which the old Scots Parliament legislated. The Common Good Act 1491 was a mere four lines long. Dennis Robertson’s bill has the clarity in conception, the purity of purpose and the economy of expression that is contained in a mere four lines in the Common Good Act. Of course, the member’s bill process in this Parliament lends itself to tightly focused and clearly expressed and articulated pieces of legislation. I think that others might usefully learn from that process, which is open to all, even if Sandra White may be one of those who are disappointed.
The core of the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill is to improve life for people with some disability that requires them to have help with parking. We need to think in terms of the dignity of the people who have a disability. My experience of that was in the early 1970s when a couple of colleagues who were blind were able, for the very first time, to receive their bank statements in Braille. Up to that point other people had had to read their bank statements to them, and that was a loss of dignity because their confidential information had perforce to be shared with others.
By the same token, when we ensure that there is adequate parking at the end of what may be an essential journey or a leisure journey—it is not for us to decide—and an actual parking place for someone who needs it because they are disabled, we confer upon that person the dignity that we are all entitled to expect. I think that the bill is excellent because it ensures that we share more widely the dignity to which we are all entitled.
There has been a bit of discussion about the powers of the enforcement officers and the matter of a uniform. In 1968, my summer job as a student was as a water bailiff. I had a warrant card, I could arrest people and I had the untrammelled right of entry into any premises without cause shown, but I had no uniform. That had been the case for water bailiffs for a very long time. Such people can have powers without having a uniform and they can be justly provided, and people were used to the idea that water bailiffs did not have uniforms. The difference in this case, of course, is that enforcement officers will be new. We therefore need to have some tact and diplomacy in the early days in which they operate.
Quite properly, Inclusion Scotland has focused on the potential for enforcement officers, traffic wardens and policemen to confiscate blue badges unnecessarily and inappropriately. I think that Inclusion Scotland has a valid point. That is why, in the introduction of an enforcement regime that will contribute enormously to people with disabilities, we need to be careful how we do it.
People who have disabilities do not necessarily see themselves as other parts of society might see them. For example, my mother was 4 foot 10 and a half and she walked with elbow crutches for most of her adult life, but it was different when she got behind the wheel of the Mini Cooper S that she drove. I remember being with her in the car—before Barbara Castle introduced the universal speed limit—as she did 100mph down the Baiglie straight.
Transport can sometimes be transformative; it was for my mother. Let us make sure that in providing parking at the end of the journey—people should not travel at 100mph as it diminishes the chance of getting there—we will enhance the lives of certain people and give them the dignity that they deserve.
17:13
As a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, I have had ample opportunity to consider in detail the proposals in the bill and the subsequent amendments to it. I would once again like to thank Dennis Robertson for bringing this important issue to the attention of the Scottish Parliament, and I commend his efforts in raising awareness of the damaging consequences of the misuse of our blue badge scheme. I reiterate that I support his member’s bill and I acknowledge that it is likely to deliver a reduction in disabled parking badge fraud. I am hopeful that that will lead to an increase in the number of parking spaces that are available to genuinely disabled people, and that that will, as a consequence, improve the quality of life of those who suffer mobility issues.
Local authorities face a significant problem in distinguishing between genuine and fraudulent badge holders. I have learned through the evidence that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee gathered through the progress of the bill that nearly 80 per cent of blue badge holders have directly experienced abuse of the system. The bill has the potential to reduce substantially the inconvenience that that causes disabled drivers.
My support for the bill arises from the conviction that those who are entitled to a blue badge should be able to access disabled parking bays when they need to. The availability of accessible spaces should never be compromised by the self-interest of those who use blue badges for convenience alone.
I believe strongly that the Scottish Government should seek to work with key stakeholders, including local authorities, to ensure that the bill is implemented consistently across the country and does not cause unnecessary confusion among genuine badge holders. I continue to believe that badge holders should be provided with comprehensive and accessible information on how their badges can be used. That would provide reassurance that disabled people who inadvertently misuse their badges are not penalised by the provisions of the bill.
I acknowledge Inclusion Scotland’s concerns that a disabled person or a carer may be criminalised when they inadvertently use a badge that has been cancelled—for example, if it has been reported lost, and has subsequently been found before the replacement has been issued. I am therefore grateful for recent assurances that no action will be taken against individuals in those circumstances. I am confident that that commonsense approach will be maintained after the bill’s implementation, and I anticipate that genuine badge holders will benefit from the policy.
Local authorities should be fully resourced to implement the bill’s provisions, including both the enforcement and review elements of the blue badge application process. I would be concerned if local authorities were tasked with implementing the new assessment and enforcement provisions without the appropriate level of funding to allow council officers to carry out their duties effectively.
Notwithstanding that concern, I am delighted to confirm my support for the bill, and I look forward to my disabled constituents receiving the benefit of an increased number of accessible parking spaces across their city. I thank Dennis Robertson and the Scottish Government civil servants for their hard work, at every stage, in bringing the bill to Parliament.
17:18
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the final stage of the bill, and I congratulate Dennis Robertson on all his good work in bringing the bill this far. I look forward to the bill being passed later today.
The blue badge scheme is an extremely important tool to enable the independence and lifestyles of those with mobility issues who would otherwise face unacceptable difficulties in maintaining regular day-to-day activities. The scheme must be preserved and protected from those who would abuse it. Each time a blue badge is misused on a car that is parked in an area where only those who hold valid blue badges are allowed to park, genuine blue badge users are denied use of a space. That is particularly problematic in city centres, where parking charges can be quite prohibitive and have led to people abusing blue badges to try to park on the cheap. According to an officer from the City of Edinburgh Council:
“between 52 and 70 percent of all badges that are on display will be being misused.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 26 March 2014; c 3278.]
That is a staggering figure, although I understand that there are some—Inclusion Scotland, for example—who have reservations over the veracity of that claim. Nonetheless, badges are being abused and that must be tackled.
During stage 2, John Wilson lodged a number of amendments on behalf of Inclusion Scotland, due to some concerns over the bill that they shared. I had some sympathy with John Wilson’s amendment 1, which sought to limit the power of confiscation so that only non-valid badges could be confiscated. Like other members, I worry that eligible badge holders might have their badges confiscated due to the actions of third parties and then be left to face the consequences. I accept that the power is important if we are to discourage abuse and free up spaces for people who genuinely need them, but I do not want people who desperately need their badges to go without them for any length of time.
I was satisfied with the reassurance that was given to the committee that valid badges will be returned to holders within 14 days of confiscation, along with an explanatory letter that reminds the holder of their responsibilities. That approach is proportionate. However, I expect the Scottish Government to monitor whether holders routinely get their badges back within two weeks.
Given that a new strict liability offence will be created, it will be important for all badge holders to be aware of their responsibilities, to ensure that they do not inadvertently misuse their badges. The booklet that is currently distributed to holders is certainly a bit clunky, as Scottish Government officials acknowledged when they gave evidence, so I welcome officials’ work to produce a more appropriate document.
I welcome the good progress that the blue badge reform working group is making towards developing a code of practice. A key element of that guidance will be about ensuring that enforcement officers always deal with people sensitively. Disability equality awareness should be a focal point of guidance and should be uppermost in the minds of officers on duty. That is extremely important.
The bill aims to strengthen the existing framework and to safeguard the rights of disabled people. Dennis Robertson must be congratulated. He was right to introduce the bill; I look forward to supporting it later this afternoon.
17:21
I pay tribute to Dennis Robertson for introducing the bill, which I hope will receive unanimous support. Like many other members, I realise that it is not always easy to steer a member’s bill through Parliament. As well as paying tribute to Mr Robertson, we should acknowledge the work that his staff have done in getting the bill to this stage.
I thank my colleagues on the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for being as assiduous and collegiate as they normally are, and I thank all the folks who gave evidence and took part in the written consultations and the events in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
We should also recognise the efforts of the Transport Scotland officials who have been working on the issue, and who brought a huge amount of common sense and gumption to the task of achieving an entirely workable approach. Many members, particularly those who have served on local authorities, know how difficult it can be to deal with blue badge issues. The bill will strengthen our hand and ensure that we have a much fairer system.
Mr Robertson’s proposal was for
“a Bill to strengthen the Blue Badge Scheme enforcement powers, including powers to cancel and confiscate badges in certain circumstances, and to provide an appeals process for applicants when their Blue Badge application is refused on eligibility grounds.”
The commonsense proposal was supported by 41 members of the Scottish Parliament: 33 Scottish National Party members, seven Labour members and Jean Urquhart MSP. I hope that members who could not sign the proposal or who chose not to do so will unite behind a bill that has been pretty well scrutinised and has produced good options.
I talked about the common sense of the debate about and scrutiny of the proposal. As we have gone through the process, we have seen a number of additions—the minister mentioned two working groups, which continue to do good work. I am sure that we will monitor the effects of the bill after it has been passed.
Misuse of badges has always been a problem. As Dennis Robertson rightly pointed out, some people feel that it is kind of all right to do certain things with blue badges. Mr Robertson mentioned somebody being a bit late for work. We heard of an example in Aberdeen of a home help using a blue badge so that she could get nearer to her client’s door. Those things are wrong, and we must get that right in the future. We heard from the City of Edinburgh Council that between 52 and 70 per cent of all badges that are on display are being misused. That is a horrifying figure. We must recognise that every single abuse might be taking away somebody’s independence, which is wrong.
I pay tribute to Dennis Robertson for bringing forward the proposal, and I hope that everybody will unite behind the bill at decision time.
I call Cameron Buchanan. You have a generous four minutes, Mr Buchanan.
17:26
There are still many anomalies with blue badge parking that we need to consider. For example, holders sometimes have to pay parking fees and there is an issue about whether people can park to unload on single and double yellow lines. When I was in London recently visiting Westminster, I found that people have to pay for parking even in blue badge areas. However, that was not clearly indicated, so I actually got a parking fine.
Surprisingly, one of the countries on the continent with the harshest penalties is Italy. The disabled parking spaces there are rarely abused, because the penalties are so harsh. One would not normally think that.
I cannot add much more, having had the history lesson from Stewart Stevenson, the eloquence of Anne McTaggart, the usual reasonableness of Jim Hume and the congratulatory messages from Kevin Stewart. We all agree, so I really do not need to say more. As members will gather, I am very supportive of the bill.
I call Mark Griffin. You have an even more generous four minutes, Mr Griffin.
17:27
The debate has been relatively short, and that was certainly a short speech from Cameron Buchanan. Mine will not be quite so short.
The debate has been consensual, and there have been no amendments to consider at stage 3, which reflects the general support from witnesses and from the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. All that is testament to the hard work that Dennis Robertson has carried out with the steering groups that were set up, and to the work that has been done with local authorities, the police and Transport Scotland.
In my opening speech, I outlined why we support the bill, which will bring much-needed improvement to administration of the blue badge scheme. During the stage 1 debate, the minister pointed out that a particularly determined individual could save about £6,000 a year in parking charges by fraudulently using a blue badge in one of our city centres. In itself, that is a shocking misuse, but it is compounded by the fact that the parking spaces are no longer available to genuine badge holders.
We have concerns about the financial impact on local authorities. We have been reassured that they can cope with the additional costs of review, but we still have questions about their ability to resource the enforcement aspect meaningfully. Regardless of that question, the bill should, we hope, result in increased revenue to councils, as misuse of blue badges is reduced from the current level.
I mentioned in my opening speech that there is a great deal of synergy between the bill, other legislation that has been enacted—Jackie Baillie’s Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (Scotland) Bill—and a bill that is in the pipeline: Sandra White’s proposed responsible parking bill. Those three combine well to improve the situation for disabled people and will go a long way towards making our towns and cities much more accessible to people who have a disability.
Section 1 of the bill sets out how the badge will be improved. That should address the issue with people tampering with an expired badge to extend the expiry date or by changing the photo. Some of the evidence that has been given indicates that the tampering and misuse of badges in that way can be fairly lucrative, with free parking on offer in many areas where it is expensive to park without the badge. Section 1 should reduce the costs of that lost revenue to local authorities and open up spaces for use by genuine badge holders.
The measures in the bill will be a welcome addition to local authorities’ powers to tackle blue badge misuse and the impact that it has on genuine users, as long as they are supported financially to enforce the measures.
Although we have always been supportive of the bill, we seek assurances that there will be an education campaign to inform genuine blue badge users of exactly what they can and cannot do with their badges. I welcome the minister’s comments on the guidance that will be issued to resolve some of the issues on that.
We will support the bill at decision time and look forward to it becoming an act and improving the lives of genuine blue badge users across Scotland.
I call the minister, Keith Brown, to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government. Minister, you have a very generous six minutes.
17:31
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.
I thank members for an informed and interesting debate. There has been a degree of consensus—not entirely by accident: the work that Dennis Robertson did in the earlier stages of the bill, both in the Parliament and with the interested parties who have been involved, led to some of the earlier concerns and proposed amendments being dealt with effectively, so much of the credit goes to him. Once again, I commend him for his work on taking forward the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill.
I also reiterate my thanks to the two multi-agency working groups for their work in support of the bill. I echo the points that Kevin Stewart made about the work done both by Dennis Robertson’s staff and by officials in Transport Scotland, who have been effective in providing support through the process.
The minister again mentioned the two working groups that are considering various aspects. Will the Parliament have an opportunity to consider and help improve the guidance? The best things about the process have included the level of input from various folks and, as I said earlier, the fact that common sense has been applied at every stage.
I am happy to give the undertaking that we will look into how best we can involve the Parliament in that process, not least because the Local Government and Regeneration Committee made a suggestion about trying to simplify things. We will consider how best we can consult the committee and others.
The bill should not be seen in isolation. It complements a number of reforms that have been made to the scheme over recent years with the aim of providing a parking concession that enables disabled people who could not otherwise do so to have access to the day-to-day things that most people take for granted, such as healthcare, work and social activities.
The Scottish Government is continuing with that intention through the way in which it has been tackling the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reform programme. I will give some detail about that because, although the issue has not been raised to a huge extent so far, it provides the context for the proposed changes, and the time that we have available provides us with a chance to examine it further.
It is clear that the UK Government’s changes to the welfare system—including, crucially, the change from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment—are causing significant anxiety and distress to people in Scotland. I have had members from all round the chamber write to me about individual cases to do with blue badges over recent months.
It is completely unacceptable that some of the most vulnerable in our society are not getting the support that they need. However, our work has gone far beyond the steps that have been taken to protect blue badge holders in England and Wales. Of course, we believe that the best solution is for the Scottish Parliament to have control over welfare matters.
Last year, in establishing arrangements to allow those who receive the personal independence payment to passport automatically to the scheme, we recognised the potential impact of the decision to tighten the threshold that must be passed in order to receive the highest rate of PIP. That is why the passporting arrangements for PIP extend to those who receive the standard rate at 8 points or more for the “moving around” activity. That measure, which was taken by the Scottish Government, ensured that the passporting arrangements for PIP and disability living allowance were as equivalent as possible.
Obviously, we continue to monitor other proposed changes. We have also taken further action to mitigate the potential effects of PIP by including two further eligibility criteria to cover those people who passported under DLA but who do not receive PIP at a rate that enables them to passport following reassessment for the new welfare benefit.
Like the minister, I would like to see the demise of personal independence payments, which are really frightening some folk. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has made moves to ensure that as many folk as possible still qualify for passported benefits. One of the things that I come across—as do others, I am sure—is the fact that information about those moves is not getting out. Could the minister commit to contacting some of the relevant charities about what the Scottish Government has done?
I am more than happy to consider that further. We have done a great deal of work, because we know how important the issue is. To put the matter in plain terms, some people who were eligible for the blue badge scheme and could passport into it automatically have been affected by the decisions and are asking why they have to be reassessed, for example. If there is anything further that we can do to ensure that the message is spread, we will certainly do it.
The first of the new criteria that we have included applies to those who do not receive PIP at the passporting rate and who are challenging that decision with the Department for Work and Pensions. The second new criterion ensures that those who were in receipt of a lifetime or indefinite higher-rate DLA award will continue to retain passporting entitlement to a blue badge, irrespective of the outcome of the PIP application.
In addition, we have also mitigated the well-reported delays to the PIP assessment process by ensuring that those who have applied for PIP but have not received their PIP decision by the time that their higher-rate DLA ends will continue to passport to the blue badge scheme.
In the white paper, we have made it clear that, if we are elected as the first Government of an independent Scotland, we will halt the further roll-out of personal independence payments. That will allow the first Government of an independent Scotland to design a welfare system that meets Scotland’s needs—especially the needs of the people who need to access the blue badge scheme.
We want the right people to have a badge. We also want a scheme that is fit for purpose. To go back to Dennis Robertson’s speech, without the strengthened enforcement powers that the bill provides, disabled badge holders might not reap the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the real point at issue. We need to ensure that those who need a blue badge are the ones who get it.
Christine Grahame raised an issue about supermarkets. As Mark Griffin rightly says, the Government has no control over that, as those car parks are private spaces. However, I wrote to the supermarkets some months ago to ask them to look into the matter to see what more they could do to protect the rights of people with disabilities. I think that we have all had the experience of going to a supermarket whose disabled bays are completely full and seeing someone with a disability having to struggle further than they should have to, given that it was perfectly clear that some people who were using those bays did not require them. If, as I suspect that it will be, the bill is passed, I undertake to write again to the supermarkets to draw their attention to what we have done and to see whether there is any way in which we can strengthen the situation in that regard.
Once again, I thank Dennis Robertson for the work that he has done and the way in which he has brought people together and dealt with the concerns that have been evident throughout the process.
Before the minister finishes, will he take an intervention?
As long as it is not an application to be a non-uniformed officer.
Anything is possible with Mr Stevenson.
Will the minister inform us a little bit about the enforcement process when badges are validated? We heard in the debate that the enforcement officer would recognise that a badge was for somebody who was 75, whereas the person in the vehicle was 40. In designing the badge and the enforcement system, how are we going to reconcile the need for privacy for the badge holder—I understand that we are not putting photographs on the badge for that reason—with the need for accurate information?
My driving licence—and everyone else’s—has a coded six-digit number that gives my birth date and gender, but the encoding is so crude that it can be broken in 3.5 seconds. How is the Government going to take forward protecting people’s right to privacy while ensuring that we have a clear and unambiguous means by which those who are enforcing the use of badges can do so appropriately?
I would not want to steal Dennis Robertson’s thunder—he might want to respond to those points—but some of those challenges have been dealt with in the most recent reforms to the blue badge scheme, whereby the security of both the database and the badge itself has been upgraded. I have said that we are in discussions with Police Scotland to allow the police to access the database. That should be the means by which we make sure that we get the system right, so that those who are challenging people are aware that a particular badge plainly does not belong to the person using it. The unique identifier that Dennis Robertson mentioned will help in that regard. Perhaps he will want to say more about that in his closing speech.
I am convinced that the changes that we have made recently and the ones that Dennis Robertson has proposed have bolstered a very secure system. The bottom line is that it should ensure that disabled people’s parking spaces—of course, the blue badge also gives people a wider discretion to park elsewhere—are used only by those who are parking there legitimately and who want and need to do so, and that we try to eradicate the practice of people using them who are not entitled to do so. If we do that, it will be a real achievement for Dennis Robertson’s bill.
I call Dennis Robertson to wind up the debate. Mr Robertson, you have eight minutes.
17:42
In winding up, I first extend my sincere thanks to those who managed to speak during this short, but very important, debate. I also offer my genuine thanks to the minister for supporting me through the process and to the team from Transport Scotland, without whose guidance I think I would have found it virtually impossible to take the bill forward. They were absolutely fantastic at guiding me through the process. As Kevin Stewart rightly said, thanks should also go to my own staff, who have been extremely supportive. I also extend my thanks to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for its scrutiny of the bill at stages 1 and 2. Stewart Stevenson was appointed at stage 2 to enable the process to meet the requirements of Parliament, so I extend my sincere thanks to him for assisting me in the process at stage 2.
As we have said before, the bill is small, but it will have a significant impact for people with disabilities, given the powers that we are looking to provide to local authorities. It is about enforcement. As has already been said, any enforcement will be done sensitively and in a manner that will not cause anxiety to badge holders.
I thank the minister for addressing most of the points that Stewart Stevenson raised in his intervention. All blue badges will continue to have a photograph, but it is at the request of people with disabilities themselves that the badge will remain face down. It is the unique identification number on each badge that will ensure that the badge holder will be identified in any enforcement process.
Cameron Buchanan mentioned the analogy of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no intention of doing that—there will be no need to, because we will have the information on the database. We will not go to every blue badge holder and investigate, because there is no reason to. What we are trying to do is to establish the evidence of a pattern of misuse. Gordon Catchlove does that in Edinburgh. When he gave evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee at stage 1 he explained how he goes about his function. It is at that point that we can determine whether a badge is being misused.
The bill represents a review process. Since the new criteria came about, the right of review if their application is turned down has not been afforded to a person with a disability. Their application will now be looked at again and the criteria examined to ensure that, if the person genuinely requires a blue badge, they will be afforded one.
At stage 1 of the bill, only 20 local authorities had a review process; I can confirm that all 32 local authorities have now put one in place. That is progress, and the local authorities are to be commended.
We have come a long way on this journey, but we still have a long way to go. Will the introduction of the bill stop universal misuse? I believe not. Will it prick the consciences of those who are determined to misuse the badge? I believe not. What it has done and will do is to raise awareness, not just through the media but among badge holders themselves.
Cameron Buchanan said that the guidelines that we give people when we issue a blue badge are important. Cameron admitted that when he received the regulations, he took one look at them and put them in a drawer. I sincerely hope that, through common sense and use of his blue badge, he has not had a parking ticket—apart from the time in London that he mentioned. It is not just about blue badge spaces; it is about using the blue badge to ensure that if there is a single yellow line or a double yellow line, someone can park appropriately, provided that there are no other restrictions.
Christine Grahame mentioned private car parks. Like the minister, I wrote to the supermarket chains and the retail outlets asking them what they had done to monitor use of blue badge spaces. I give an undertaking to Parliament today to write once again to the supermarket chains and retail outlets to ask them to step up to the plate and—on the back of the bill, if it is passed this afternoon, which I sincerely hope it will be—to look at ways of enforcing the use of the blue badge spaces within those private areas.
It is important to ensure that our health boards step up to the plate, too. They already have the means to monitor blue badge spaces and to ensure that they are appropriately used. I will be asking the health boards to ensure that—again, on the back of the bill—they, too, look at ways in which they can enforce use of their disabled parking spaces.
It has been an enjoyable if lengthy process. My thanks go to all those who participated in the consultation and all those who want a bill that will give them better use of their blue badge. I hope that it is a bill that will prick the consciences of people who have misused badges. It will also give us the guidelines that we so desperately need to try to ensure that a person with a disability can use their badge appropriately and without confusion.
I thank Parliament and every member who has participated in the process—through stages 1 and 2 and in this afternoon’s short but concise debate—for offering sincere assurances that they will support the bill through to the end of the process this afternoon.
Previous
Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers BillNext
Decision Time