The next item of business is a debate in the name of Dennis Robertson, on the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill.
16:21
It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to come to the chamber to introduce the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill, which is more commonly known as the blue badges bill.
The bill is designed to strengthen some of the enforcement aspects of the current legislation and to 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 are using one are legitimately entitled to it.
The badge provides on-street concessions within local authority parking zones and there is sometimes a degree of contention about blue badge spaces. The bill is not concerned with the spaces, however; it deals with how the badge is used and how to tackle its misuse.
I thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which is the lead committee for the bill. I also thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance Committee for their submissions to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. My thanks also go to the Minister for Transport and Veterans for the support that he gave me in the early stages and to the Government for being supportive of the bill. However, I certainly would not have been able to make progress with the bill without the support of the team from Transport Scotland, which has been excellent in taking me through the process of the bill and providing me with the appropriate guidance.
The Transport Scotland team was also responsible, along with myself, for setting up two review groups. It is important to emphasise that those groups have been influential in shaping the bill. They continue to be involved in the process, and I thank their members for the degree of commitment that they bring to their work, the time that they spend on it and their consideration of the guidance that will underpin the bill.
The bill has six sections. Section 1 concerns the design of the badge. Since it was first introduced, the badge has undergone many changes. To begin with, it was an orange badge, and I remember when that scheme was brought in under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Section 1 of the bill sets out how the badge will be improved so that it cannot be copied. The current badge can be and is tampered with to alter the expiry date and so on or to remove photographs. People can take a legitimate badge from someone and use it for their own purposes. I will return to that later.
Section 2 will give a local authority the power to cancel a badge that has been reported as lost or stolen. At the moment, that is seldom centrally registered. The blue badge is issued by a central authority in England, the blue badge improvement service, which holds a record of every blue badge issued in Scotland, England and Wales. With each badge comes a unique number for the badge holder so that when a badge is lost or stolen it can be reported and a new badge issued, with a new identification number. That ensures that any badge issued by the BBIS is legitimate and fit for purpose.
The issue of confiscation has caused a little debate among some organisations and members have been approached by Inclusion Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland. I want to reassure members that a badge would be confiscated only if it was felt that there was justification to do so. In most cases, an examination of the badge by an enforcement officer would probably determine whether that badge had been tampered with, was legitimate or was the badge of the person in the vehicle at the time. If the badge did not belong to the person in the vehicle, the enforcement officer would want to know where the badge holder was. We hear many stories: the person whose badge it is has just nipped into a shop and will be back in five minutes; or there has been a mistake and the badge should have been removed, because the driver was just nipping to the shops on an errand for a person with a disability and forgot that the badge was there. We hear many, many excuses.
Confiscation will be carried out sensitively. There is no point in confiscating a badge from a person who has a legitimate right to it. The badge is not just about on-street parking; it is about empowering people to get out and about. It enables people to get out of their homes and pursue leisure or employment, go shopping or visit family. It has an enabling function. At the moment, though, we are aware that it is being misused and abused.
There are some questions around the evidence from Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. The Law Society and Inclusion Scotland have asked for that evidence to be substantiated. I say to both groups that if a blue badge is being used by someone other than the badge holder, that person is denying someone else that disabled parking space. On-street parking can be difficult, especially in town centres.
The measures in the bill are appropriate and proportionate. I am grateful to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for taking evidence and explaining to the Law Society of Scotland and Inclusion Scotland what it felt were the appropriate measures.
When we gave evidence to the committee at stage 1, the minister and I were questioned on those aspects and I think that we gave the appropriate answers to provide some degree of reassurance—if not total reassurance—to the Law Society of Scotland and Inclusion Scotland.
The other element of the bill that we are looking at is about non-uniformed officers. Again, that relates to the enforcement aspect of the blue badge scheme. Sometimes, what we need is the evidence, as has been called for. We need to ensure that badges are not being misused. At the moment, the intelligence from Glasgow and Edinburgh is that enforcement officers can go out, investigate, take evidence and then maybe make the appropriate approach—again, they could advise the police.
The final aspect of the bill is the review process, which is extremely important. In 2012, we introduced the independent mobility assessment, which lays down the criteria for a person to be given a badge. The measures are there. At the moment, there is no review process in some local authorities, but I am delighted to say that since we started moving forward with the bill, the majority of local authorities have put a review process in place.
I look forward to the debate and I hope that, at the end of it, the bill will be able to move on to the next stage.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill.
I call Kevin Stewart to speak on behalf of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. You have a maximum of seven minutes, Mr Stewart.
16:31
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate on behalf of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which scrutinised the bill at stage 1.
Dennis Robertson is to be commended for all his hard work and diligence in producing the bill. He has introduced it and piloted it to this stage. He has a personal interest as a blue badge holder, which I am sure has probably added to the work required of him. In his opening speech, he helpfully set out in general terms what the bill seeks to achieve.
This member’s bill is small in size, but do not let that fool anybody; it addresses a serious matter and the committee heard some illuminating evidence about the scale of the problems that exist. As with all bills that come before the committee, we initially sought views on its content. We received 27 responses, many of which mirrored comments that Dennis Robertson received in his earlier consultation.
The committee also heard evidence from three panels of witnesses, representing local authorities, third sector bodies including disability organisations, and the police and the Law Society of Scotland. In a departure from our normal approach, we heard evidence from the member in charge, Dennis Robertson, in a panel alongside the minister. That worked extremely well, with the evidence from the member and from the minister dovetailing and complementing one another. It avoided duplication and, of course, reduced the time involved, for which my very busy committee was extremely grateful. I would recommend that other committees consider that approach for bills where the underlying policy is not contentious.
There were some limited disagreements between witnesses, which is to be expected and, of course, is welcome, as it allows the committee to test the policy fully. We are extremely grateful to all those who gave us evidence, be it in written or oral form. Without input from such people, committees and, indeed, the Parliament could not properly and effectively scrutinise legislation.
We heard that some 260,000 individuals in Scotland hold a blue badge, for many of whom the badge provides a lifeline, allowing them to park without charge or time limit in otherwise restricted on-street places. It also allows them to park on single and double yellow lines, with certain restrictions relating to the safety of other road users, and where there are no other restrictions in place. That can allow badge holders to access jobs, shops and other services.
We also heard that people misuse badges for financial gain, either by using fraudulent badges or by using badges when the badge holder is not present. Given that in Glasgow city centre, for example, parking costs £3 an hour, we can see the temptation to abuse badges in that way. The temptation is probably increased because the existing law is weak. The bill will provide additional enforcement powers to local authority officials and police officers; allow badges to be cancelled and confiscated in certain circumstances; and provide increased security features, which should reduce forgeries and other forms of abuse.
The bill will make it a criminal offence to display a badge that is not valid—it might have expired, or it might not be being used properly. As Dennis Robertson mentioned, a person’s nipping out to the shops on behalf of a badge holder, for example, does not entitle them to use the badge and nor does a person’s nipping into the shops when the badge holder is in the car. The purpose is to provide the badge holder, and no one else, with access.
The bill will allow the confiscation of badges that are being improperly used. That provoked a little bit of controversy in the evidence, as the badge holder could be inconvenienced as a result of somebody else’s actions. However, we were reassured that, if the badge was confiscated, it would be returned to the badge holder promptly, thus minimising their time without it. I could go on further about that, but Dennis Robertson gave the Parliament a fair show on it.
We heard interesting evidence from civilian enforcement officers about the problems that they face and how they undertake their jobs. Indeed, I understand that, as a result of that evidence, discussions are now taking place to allow the police access to the existing national database of blue badges. That alone could make a significant difference in tackling abuse and could make the task of detecting abusers more efficient.
The bill will also put in place a requirement for all local authorities to have a review system in place to consider appeals from persons who apply for and are refused a blue badge. That provoked the suggestion from the Law Society of Scotland in its written evidence that the provision is not compliant with human rights legislation. It wants the appeal to be to a sheriff, as an independent tribunal.
The committee discussed the issue in oral evidence and the Law Society conceded that its main concern was about the cost of judicially reviewing a local authority’s decision. It accepted that the existence of judicial review makes the provision compliant with human rights. Curiously perhaps, the Law Society was more concerned with legalistic propositions than with convenience and speed for the individual. The committee was content that the proposals in the bill provide for an independent review, minimise costs all round and satisfy the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
It was clear to the committee that at least some misuse of blue badges was inadvertent. I have given a couple of examples that could fall into that category. We asked witnesses how that misuse could be reduced and how badge holders could be better informed of the dos and don’ts of using their badges. All blue badge holders receive a booklet, but many perhaps either do not read it or do not understand it, or it might not be in the best format for them. A multi-agency working group is looking at that. We consider that much could be done to make it easier for badge holders to comply with the law.
The committee unanimously backed the bill. We commend the general principles to the Parliament and look forward to future consideration of a measure that is small but eminently worthy.
16:38
I am pleased to contribute to the debate and, as Kevin Stewart did, commend Dennis Robertson for the work that he has done so far. I reiterate that the Government supports Dennis Robertson and the bill.
The bill follows a period of earlier reform and modernisation of the blue badge scheme, which, among other changes, saw the introduction of the blue badge database, which Dennis Robertson mentioned. That database holds information on blue badge holders in Scotland, England and Wales. In addition, a new badge design makes the forgery and replication of badges much more difficult.
To add to that, Dennis Robertson’s bill will provide more powers for the detection of forged or fraudulently used badges. That can only be a good thing for badge holders, who often have their days ruined when they cannot go about their business due to disabled parking spaces being used by those who misuse badges.
As Kevin Stewart said, during the bill process we must bear in mind the interests of those who are most important—the blue badge users.
Blue badge holders in my constituency have raised concerns about the rather onerous hoops that they need to go through to apply for the blue badge when it is evident that their eligibility is not in question. Does the database allow the process to be streamlined for those whose eligibility is not in question?
I have heard other individuals express that concern, which is often the result of welfare reform changes that require people, as Liam McArthur put it, to go through hoops. That is why the form can be somewhat complex.
From time to time, we have looked at whether the form could be made more straightforward. In particular, we have tried to maximise the number of people with a blue badge who will be passported straight through to entitlement in the future. However, it is important to have the form because that helps to drive out misuse of badges and forged badges. We will keep the matter under review, as we have done up until now.
I, too, thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. I endorse Kevin Stewart’s point about the effectiveness of witnesses giving evidence to the committee at the same time as Dennis Robertson, the bill’s proposer. I also thank the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill.
We have heard much of the bill’s detail from Dennis Robertson, so I will draw on some of the conclusions of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s report. An issue was the difficulty in identifying the level of misuse. It has not been easy for Dennis Robertson in developing the proposals to establish a baseline of evidence for the scale of blue badge scheme misuse. In that context, our thanks must go to the Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council, which provided information based on snapshots of blue badge use and misuse in their areas.
I underline Kevin Stewart’s point that a very determined person can save themselves upwards of £6,000 by misusing a blue badge. I also reiterate the point that blue badge misuse is not a victimless crime—or will not be when it becomes a criminal offence. As has been said, a misused badge deprives people of the disabled parking spaces to which they are entitled.
Research findings from Scotland on the use and value of the blue badge and the extrapolation of data from England also contributed to defining as closely as possible the scale of misuse. Paragraph 22 of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s stage 1 report gets to the crux of the matter and states:
“While it is unclear how accurate these figures are or indeed whether they refer to overall abuse rates, it is clear from the evidence we received there is a substantial problem which impacts adversely on people’s lives. The Bill aims to address by improving the ability of the enforcement authorities to take action in a number of ways.”
I agree whole-heartedly. That is why it is important that local authorities have powers to act in cases in which it is apparent that a blue badge is not being used in the way that it should be used or by the person whom it is intended to assist.
I also acknowledge Police Scotland’s commitment to enforce the blue badge scheme. As mentioned in the stage 1 report, I confirm that Transport Scotland officials are consulting the blue badge improvement service to facilitate direct access by Police Scotland to the blue badge database. That will give Police Scotland immediate and accurate information on badges issued by local authorities.
While the bill is an improvement on what went before and on the further improvements that we have made over the past two years following a review of the scheme, it will not provide a quick fix to the misuse of badges. Research on the use and value of the blue badge scheme highlighted gaps in people’s understanding of the scheme; that was echoed in responses to Dennis Robertson’s consultation on the bill and in the evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee.
As was mentioned, Transport Scotland is working with Dennis Robertson, and a multi-agency working group has been set up to help to inform the policy behind the legislation and to consider wider issues: for example, how better to highlight the role and purpose of the blue badge scheme to badge holders, enforcement officers and the wider public.
The old cliché is not true; one size will not fit all. We need to get the relevant information to the right people. In order to do that, guidance will first be disseminated to all local authorities and to Police Scotland on the changes that the bill will introduce. Local authorities will be able to include that guidance in their existing training arrangements for enforcement officers and appropriate guidance will also be arranged for use by Police Scotland.
Secondly, we will review the current information for badge holders, with the aim of providing more concise messages on the use and care of the blue badge. As Kevin Stewart said, some of the current guidance is perhaps a bit unwieldy. As I said to the committee, work is under way in the multi-agency working group to develop the top 10 tips for use of the blue badge. The aim is to produce something that is easy to read and durable and that can be kept with the blue badge, as a constant reminder of the correct way to use it.
Thirdly, publicity will be developed to deter abuse and to make people aware of the devastating impact of the scheme’s abuse on blue badge holders.
The bill is the culmination of a range of measures that have been put in place over the past few years to ensure that people who hold blue badges can benefit from the on-street parking concession that the scheme provides.
I again thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for its work, and in particular for considering the range of written and oral evidence that it received and exploring the issues that were raised. The Government will continue to support Dennis Robertson as the bill progresses.
16:45
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Bill and I congratulate Dennis Robertson on the progress that he has made.
Labour members support the general principles of the bill and will vote yes at decision time tonight. We welcome the bill’s main objective, which is 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 one.
However, we seek reassurance from the Scottish Government that it will work with its multi-agency working group to ensure that blue badge holders are properly educated about how to use their badge, so that disabled people who inadvertently misuse their badge are not penalised under the proposed new approach. I welcome what the minister said about providing more concise information to users.
We also seek reassurance that local government in Scotland will be properly supported and financially resourced to implement the bill’s provisions, in particular those on enforcement and review.
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 could be taken.
Sandra White quickly followed with a proposal for a responsible parking bill, which would allow freedom of movement for all pedestrians, by restricting parking at dropped kerbs and on pavements and double parking. The issue affects disabled people, who can find it difficult to negotiate their way across pavements and roads if their route is blocked by a parked car.
Sandra White’s proposal complements the approach in the Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. Together, the measures will go a long way towards making our towns and cities more accessible to people who have a disability.
The proposed powers in the bill will be a welcome addition for local authorities as they seek to tackle blue badge misuse and its impact on genuine users, as long as authorities are financially supported to enforce those powers, in particular the power to cancel a badge that is no longer held by the person to whom it was issued.
Constables and enforcement officers will be given the power to confiscate a badge that appears not to have been issued under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, that has been cancelled, that should have been returned to the local authority or that is being misused. It will be an offence to use a cancelled badge and to drive a vehicle while displaying a badge that has been cancelled or should have been returned to the local authority. The proposed powers will be most effective in curbing misuse of the scheme.
Although we support the bill at this stage, we seek assurances that there will be an education campaign to inform genuine blue badge users of exactly what they can and cannot do when they use their badge.
Other issues, which are not covered in the bill, might be worth thinking about in future. Blue badge holders can sometimes park on single or double yellow lines, but they are not allowed to do so if there are additional markings on the kerb. Sometimes it is possible to park, but people cannot find the road sign that lists the prohibited times without walking a long distance and standing in the street to check the restrictions. There appear to be more and more restricted areas and it would be worth while if the minister looked into the upsurge in restrictions.
I will close as I began, by saying that we support the bill’s general principles and that we will support them at decision time, with the caveats that I gave on assurances about resourcing and education. I look forward to the bill progressing.
16:50
I start by declaring an interest as a blue badge holder, as members will know I am from seeing me stagger into the chamber with my two sticks. I have a great interest in the subject.
As a blue badge holder and a fellow MSP, I add my congratulations to Dennis Robertson on introducing the bill. I, too, have suffered from some of the problems that have been described.
From the contributions that have been made and from the evidence, we know that the blue badge scheme needs to be reformed. That reform is definitely overdue. The evidence that was presented to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee showed an overwhelming sense of resentment among blue badge users about the lack of respect that the scheme is shown and the subsequent wide-scale abuse that goes on. Calls were made for greater awareness and investment in education, given the number of blue badges that are being misused unintentionally by family members, for example, as we have heard.
In his evidence, Grahame Lawson of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland said that the number of people who take the time to read the booklet on their rights and responsibilities under the scheme is very small. We have touched on that. The booklet is a little complicated. It needs to be simplified and cut down, because people do not read such things.
The staggering scale of intentional and calculated fraud that goes on under the scheme points to a far greater problem, which the bill cannot fully address. The fundamental problem is that too many people do not understand—as I did not—how valuable the scheme is to those who have mobility problems and how much those with a disability are restricted and prevented from going about everyday tasks when they do not have access to designated disabled parking bays. If people understood what a lifeline those bays are, their attitude to the abuse that goes on would be very different. That is why I would welcome a bit more education, which is key.
The fact is that people know that using a disabled parking bay is wrong, but they also tend to think that it is okay to use one if they are running late for an appointment, as we heard from Dennis Robertson, or nipping into the supermarket for something. That is not okay, and we must make it clear to people why it is not okay. We must challenge the notion that it is somehow acceptable to abuse such schemes in the right circumstances.
We blue badge holders have a critical role in the drive for greater awareness. We should be aware of our rights and responsibilities, as the likes of Helen Dolphin from Disabled Motoring UK argued in her evidence. One of the biggest misunderstandings is about a friend or relative borrowing our blue badge to run an errand on our behalf. That is a definite misuse, although many people do not regard it as such. In theory, the badge is valid only when the badge holder is in the vehicle concerned. I am not sure whether the badge holder must be getting out of the vehicle; sometimes, I have been caught in that way.
Raising awareness and challenging false perceptions are an important part of tackling the problem. Improving enforcement is also a critical element, which has long been missing. That is the strength in Dennis Robertson’s bill. New laws are often passed when better enforcement of existing legislation would be just as—if not more—effective. The bill focuses on how we improve the workings of the blue badge scheme, and central to that is enforcement.
Most telling is the fact that many witnesses told the committee time and again that misuse rates are high—they are estimated to be between 52 and 70 per cent in Edinburgh—because those who commit the offence are confident that they will not be caught. Local authority officers’ contributions were interesting. There was broad agreement that blue badge fraud is in many cases viewed as a cheap alternative to car parking charges, although we heard that only 30 cases of common-law fraud were recorded in relation to blue badges. We must more readily prosecute those who abuse the system routinely and deter people who see abusing the scheme as an easy option.
I am a bit worried about the confiscation of badges. I make a particular point about that because confiscating a badge deprives somebody of it. It is crucial that confiscated badges are returned quickly to holders who are not guilty.
The new criminal offence that the bill proposes and the powers of confiscation are welcome, but that is not really an end to the process. It is obvious from our evidence gathering that there is work to be done on data sharing and the design of the badge.
I, too, support the bill.
We move to the open debate. If members keep their speeches to a maximum of four minutes, I should be able to call everyone who wants to speak.
16:55
I congratulate my colleague Dennis Robertson on introducing the bill. I fully agree with the bill’s policy objectives of protecting the rights of badge holders and strengthening the existing framework of the scheme. I also agree that, without the blue badge, many disabled people would be confined to their homes, as members have mentioned.
For me, that is central to the bill’s objectives and resonates well with my proposed responsible parking bill, whose policy objectives are to allow freedom of movement for all pedestrians by restricting parking at dropped kerbs, parking on pavements and double parking. It seems to me that those two bills and the act that Jackie Baillie introduced, which Mark Griffin mentioned, complement one another. Irresponsible parking affects the ability of people—especially the disabled, the elderly and those with visual impairments—to get around, to access local services and to otherwise enjoy the freedom of movement that many of us take for granted.
Unfortunately, unlike the bill that we are debating, my proposed bill appears to have fallen foul of parliamentary process and has not moved forward at the same speed, even though it was lodged some months earlier. I am obviously frustrated by that, as are many members of the public across the country, judging by the correspondence that I have received regarding my bill. Perhaps Dennis Robertson could give me some sage advice on the best way to move forward my proposed responsible parking bill. I will have a chat with him after the debate.
The committee’s report states:
“On-street parking enforcement is the responsibility of the police and local authorities. The police are responsible where parking remains criminalised ... and Police Scotland use police officers or police traffic wardens to enforce parking restrictions. Local authorities are responsible in areas where parking has been decriminalised”.
In giving evidence to the committee on behalf of Police Scotland, Assistant Chief Constable Wayne Mawson stated:
“We are changing the way in which we conduct parking enforcement by removing the traffic warden role. However, we are committed to tackling dangerous or obstructive parking and the misuse of blue badges, including parking in disabled bays. That commitment will remain after the traffic warden service ceases.”
I welcome that. However, his colleague Superintendent Craig Naylor went on to say:
“Some of the paperwork that”
has been
“pulled together mentions that people say that it is hard to get in touch with a police officer to deal with abuses”.—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 26 March 2014; c 3308, 3316.]
People can dial 101 to contact the police, which Police Scotland says is a good way to go about reporting abuses, but many of my constituents tell me—I presume that other members hear the same from their constituents—that that is not the case in dealing with parking offences. They are informed that many parking offences are under the control of local authorities, although that is clearly not the case. We need some information and clarity on the issue. As others have stated, the police have responsibility for such issues. I would like some clarity on the matter—perhaps I should write to Police Scotland myself. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities also highlighted its concerns about enforcement in its submission to the committee.
I agree with Kevin Stewart, the minister and Mark Griffin that we need multi-agency working, more information and more education to ensure that people know exactly who is responsible. There is much confusion over who is responsible for what and over where people can and cannot park—for example, there is confusion about parking on yellow lines, as Mark Griffin mentioned. I would welcome the opportunity to look at the issues and concerns around parking and enforcement with a view to adopting a consistent approach to achieving the bill’s aims.
In conclusion, I echo Dennis Robertson: the bill is about not just parking, but enabling people to have a life. I fully support the bill.
16:59
I join others in warmly congratulating Dennis Robertson on the progress that he has made with the bill so far. All the speakers have rightly pointed out that although it is a small bill, its significance should not be underestimated. I thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for its work to date on the bill.
Mark Griffin was right to set the bill in a wider context. I certainly understand Sandra White’s frustrations over her bill. I know that a precursor to her bill was brought forward by my colleague Ross Finnie, so the issue has been in the pipeline for some time. Jackie Baillie’s efforts in relation to the misuse of disabled parking bays are also worth noting in the context of this debate.
I was not involved in the committee’s deliberations on the bill, but I welcome, from two perspectives, the chance to participate in this debate. The first perspective is that of personal interest, as I am the brother of a wheelchair user who is a blue badge holder. I recognise very much the frustrations that Cameron Buchanan, Dennis Robertson and others have outlined about the abuse of blue badges and the impact that that has on the individual blue badge holder.
The second perspective is that of my constituency casework, from which I know about the issues that can arise with the malfunctioning of the current system and the need for improvements of the sort that Dennis Robertson is bringing forward in his bill and the proposals that Sandra White has under review.
I was very grateful to the minister for his response when I raised the issue of the administration of the current scheme. I know that a number of constituents are concerned about the 20-page form and the possible half-hour assessment that are involved in securing a blue badge. One constituent approached me on behalf of her parents, who are over 80. She made it clear that
“it is hugely stressful to get through all these procedures, so much so that they would rather forfeit their badge than go through all of this.”
She went on to ask whether a more streamlined process might be possible when eligibility is obviously not in question and is supported—as happens in some cases—by evidence from general practitioners and nurses. I put on record my gratitude to Orkney Islands Council for the way in which it has responded to the concerns that I have raised, but there seems to be a case for more discretion or a fast-track process in some instances.
On the enforcement provisions to which other members have referred, I am aware of COSLA’s evidence. Like others, I have concerns about the withdrawal of traffic wardens in my area, and about the possible implications for already stretched police resources. I think that the issue will have to be looked at in more detail at stage 2. Likewise, in relation to the confiscation of badges, I recognise that there is a balance to be struck when we try to bear down on fraud, but if we are at risk of creating additional problems for those who rely heavily on their blue badge, we might need to look again at confiscation. I note the comments that have been made about the speed of redress when mistakes have been made but, in light of Inclusion Scotland’s evidence, I think that more work needs to be done in that area.
As I said, this is a small bill but it is hugely significant for those who rely on blue badges, which enable people to lead more independent lives. I welcome the progress that has been made on the bill and I wish Dennis Robertson all the luck in the world as the bill proceeds through stages 2 and 3.
I confirm that the Liberal Democrats will support the bill at decision time.
17:03
I come to the debate as a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and as a member, in the previous parliamentary session, of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which examined Jackie Baillie’s Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. I therefore have some knowledge of the issues that are presented in Dennis Robertson’s bill.
Although legislation already exists for many parts of the blue badge scheme, anyone with even basic knowledge of the subject knows that there are on-going problems with the scheme, particularly in relation to its abuse. Dennis Robertson’s bill seeks to enhance the rights of blue badge holders. We must recognise that that is what it is about.
The Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s stage 1 report, which was published this month, is supportive in principle of the bill and its general intentions. That is not to say that the evidence presented to the committee showed that organisations did not have some concerns about the bill. For example, we heard concerns from the Law Society of Scotland and Inclusion Scotland about its implementation.
The blue badge scheme is, in essence, about assisting disabled people to live independent lives. During the committee’s evidence-taking sessions, it was suggested that blue badge abuse tends to occur most frequently in supermarket car parks. We have no legislation on such areas, and people must be aware that private car parks such as supermarket car parks are not covered by the bill. We need to examine that area further.
The committee also heard evidence about the levels of abuse of blue badges. Gordon Catchlove of the City of Edinburgh Council gave detailed figures, and said that 52 to 70 per cent of the blue badges that are on display in Edinburgh at any one time are being misused. However, we must recognise that even disabled people can hold down jobs and that they depend on the blue badge scheme to get to and from work, so some of the badges that are on display may belong to genuine blue badge holders who are carrying out full-time employment to their benefit.
That leads me to the area of enforcement. On-street parking is the responsibility of the police or local authorities, as other members have said. I hope that we have resolved that issue, given the evidence that we received at committee. There is clear guidance on who is responsible for enforcement in relation to the misuse or abuse of blue badges.
You are in your final minute.
Both the member in charge of the bill, Dennis Robertson MSP, and the minister said that many disability organisations do not share the concerns that have been expressed by Inclusion Scotland. The debate that is taking place within the disability movement is to be welcomed by everyone as it will enable us to be clear about how we move forward.
I thank Dennis Robertson for bringing his bill to the Parliament, and I thank everyone who has given evidence to the committee. I hope that we as a Parliament will achieve legislation that helps disabled people to fulfil their lives and participate as fully as possible in the activities that they want to engage in. We have to ensure that action will be taken, and to get a clear message to those people who misuse or abuse the blue badge scheme.
I congratulate Dennis Robertson on getting to this stage and look forward to the bill becoming an act at a later date.
We now turn to the closing speeches. I remind members who have participated in the debate that they should be in the chamber for the closing speeches.
17:07
It seems only a minute—or maybe it was four—since I gave my opening speech. Still, what the debate lacked in longevity, it more than made up in its succinct, constructive and supportive tone in favour of Dennis Robertson’s bill.
In my opening remarks, I outlined why I support the bill, which will bring much-needed improvement to the administration of the blue badge scheme. However, I am aware that there are still some concerns over some of the finer details. For instance, there are a range of views on non-uniformed enforcement officers. I am a bit wary of that issue, the crux of which is the striking of a balance between the most effective way of enforcing the legislation and showing an appropriate level of sensitivity to blue badge users and their personal circumstances. Very quickly, we centred on how officers will be identified and whether that will give assurances to the likes of Inclusion Scotland. There is clearly a need for some further discussion on the point, probably at stage 2.
Liam McArthur mentioned the hoops that people need to go through to get a blue badge. That is not covered in the bill, but it is a difficult, complicated process. I know that, as I have gone through it. I sent in a picture of me limping along a pavement because I could not show them that I am disabled.
The Law Society of Scotland highlighted its concerns about the inclusion in the bill of strict criminal liability relating to the use of a badge once it has been cancelled, and other evidence was given to the committee about the potential for people to commit offences inadvertently. We heard concerns about what would happen where vulnerable badge holders were aware of abuse but had limited options due to their reliance on others around them. Along with the enforcement issue that I mentioned earlier, that highlights an important aspect of the enforcement of the legislation, namely that it will require local authority officers and the police, where appropriate, to exercise their duties with a good deal of care and sensitivity.
Although we agree that, in clear-cut cases of fraud, we expect the perpetrator to be prosecuted, we would all expect a certain flexibility and discretion to be shown in the more complex areas that there will undoubtedly be. We do not want genuine mistakes to be met with punitive fines.
If we are to have well-trained enforcement officers on the ground, we will need the money to fund them, which brings me to the vexed issue of funding and resources. Happily, a number of local authorities have officers in place who are able to tackle the matter at present, but they would have to monitor the working of the bill in practice. Perhaps that is something that we can deal with at stage 2. We also heard that there was anecdotal evidence of unofficial amnesties on expired blue badges where councils had a backlog in the administrative processing of appeals. The system must be properly funded if it is to work, and greater funding will be required for the process of reviewing decisions.
In areas where the police are responsible for enforcement, resources will have to be put in place. I was pleased to hear the assurances that were given at the committee, but we must monitor the situation in that regard.
I am sure that all the issues that I have mentioned can be highlighted at stage 2, but we must not lose sight of the fact that, at its core, the bill gives local authorities and police sensible powers—powers that they have long sought—to challenge the widespread abuse of the blue badge scheme. Therefore, I support the bill.
17:11
As a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, I have had the opportunity to consider in some detail the proposal contained in the bill and its likely effects. I thank Dennis Robertson MSP for bringing an important issue to the attention of the Scottish Parliament, and I commend his efforts in raising awareness of the very real consequences of blue badge misuse in towns and cities across Scotland.
I fully support the bill’s broad aims. I acknowledge that it can often be challenging for disabled people to find accessible parking spaces and that blue badges go some way towards addressing the difficulties that badge holders experience in reaching their destination safely. I was initially surprised to learn that more than half of all blue badge holders believe that misuse of badges is a major problem. Despite realising that disabled parking badges were too often open to misuse, I had not appreciated the scale of the problem that local authorities face in distinguishing between genuine and fraudulent badge holders.
I feel strongly that the Scottish Government should seek to work with key stakeholders to ensure that all blue badge holders are properly educated on the use of the badge. I appreciate the minister’s comments about the top 10 tips that people will easily understand, which sounds like an excellent idea. That would provide reassurance that disabled people who inadvertently misuse their badge will not be penalised under the bill’s provisions.
I recognise concerns raised by the Law Society of Scotland that the introduction of new criminal offences—of driving a motor vehicle while displaying a cancelled badge and of wrongful use of a blue badge—are simply duplications of the existing common-law offence of fraud. However, I believe that the incorporation of those offences in statutory form will raise awareness of the seriousness of blue badge misuse and will send a clear message that those who deprive genuinely disabled people of accessible parking spaces will be punished.
However, I share the concern that the bill does not contain a right of appeal to an impartial body after a blue badge application has been reviewed and rejected by a local authority. I believe that there should be an external appeals process—one that is resourced—that reviews the rejection of applications by local authorities, and that that external process should have the power to overturn the original decision if there is evidence to justify an appeal. I also believe that, as Cameron Buchanan said in his closing speech, local authorities should be fully resourced to implement the provisions of the bill, including in relation to enforcement and the review elements of the of the blue badge application process.
Notwithstanding those observations, I am delighted to confirm my support for the aims of the proposed legislation. and I look forward to considering the issues in greater detail with my constituents as the bill progresses.
17:15
I will try to cover and respond to some of the points that have been raised in the debate.
John Wilson talked about enforcement in private car parks, and he was quite right to say that that does not fall within our jurisdiction. I have written to the Scottish Retail Consortium to highlight the importance of the issue and the need for disabled people to have close access to shops. I hope that the passing of the bill will raise retailers’ awareness of the importance of managing disabled bays in shopping centres. If necessary, I will be more than happy to write to the SRC again once the legislation has commenced.
Anne McTaggart raised the issue brought up by the Law Society of Scotland about the offence of duplication of a blue badge. It is already an offence to misuse a blue badge. By introducing an offence of using a cancelled badge, section 4 of the bill is amending the existing law to include provision that it is also an offence to drive or to park a vehicle that is displaying a badge that has been cancelled or that should have been returned to the issuing authority. I am no lawyer, but I think that it is true that we have a general presumption in law against theft, but there are many aspects of theft that we describe as an offence in law, and this is, to my mind, similar.
To return to the point that Cameron Buchanan made about being sensitive about these things, we would not expect action to be taken if a person who had previously reported their badge as having been lost then found it again and inadvertently used it instead of the replacement. The same situation would have to apply to a carer who transports a badge holder and is unlikely to be unaware that the badge holder is using a cancelled badge. It is quite right to say that we should be sensitive about such things. Every case should be treated on its own merits, which is why we are working with the agencies that are involved, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police, to ensure that guidance to local authorities is in place to allow agencies to take a pragmatic approach to enforcement.
It is not really part of this bill, but mention was made of the application for blue badges. Local authorities should and do provide assistance to those who are going through that process. It is also true to say that the code of practice gives guidance to local authorities on the application process, and it recommends that, if a person is clearly eligible and their condition is unlikely to change, the blue badge improvement service can be notified so that no independent mobility assessment will be required in the future when a person is reapplying for a badge. That is helpful to people in those circumstances. Many local authorities operate in that way.
To go back to the point about being sensitive in these cases, I note that, even if a case is referred to the procurator fiscal, it is its role, on receipt of reports about crimes from the police and other reporting agencies, to decide what action to take, including whether to prosecute someone. That step provides a further check.
I thank the minister for giving way, and I note that he and I are wearing twin ties for Enable Scotland.
The minister mentioned changes to welfare in his response to Liam McArthur earlier, and the move from disability living allowing to personal independence payments might cause some difficulties. Can the minister ensure that the expert groups that he has set up will do everything that they can to iron out those difficulties to make sure that folks who need blue badges will get them?
It is a very good point. I noticed that Kenneth Gibson was also wearing the same tie for Enable Scotland. This is an enabling bill for those who have disabilities, so it is quite appropriate.
On welfare reform, our guiding approach so far has been to maximise the number of people who will passport automatically because they were previously eligible. We have tried to minimise the changes that will take effect in Scotland by keeping an eye on those who have blue badges and making it as straightforward as possible for them to continue to use them when they are eligible. That will be the approach that we will continue to take in future.
Enforcement officers and the question of legal recompense to local authorities were mentioned. The bill confers powers, not duties, so it is up to local authorities to decide how to use the powers. They can help to fund additional officers—if that is what they choose to do—by using the money that they can take under the bill. As I said earlier, someone in Glasgow or Edinburgh who misuses a badge can gain up to £6,000 a year. That money is lost to the local authorities. If they can get that money back in, it can help them to pay for their enforcement services, but that would be the choice of the local authorities.
The one place where there will be an additional cost is the review process. I note the point that Anne McTaggart raised about an independent and perhaps external review process. We looked at such a process and, although I am not afraid to look at it again, we have taken local authorities at their word that they can manage—as they do in many other respects—an internal review process. Of course, outwith that, people have recourse to the ombudsman and, as I said earlier, to the legal process, so there are adequate means of redress.
On a related point, there is a good reason why the process to get a blue badge can be quite complex: to protect the interests of blue badge holders. The process is complex right across the UK—the Scottish Government has not done this alone—whether regarding the database or the new process. The reason is to minimise the number of people who should not have a badge who do. The number of spaces is limited, so it is very important that we protect the interests of those who need them most. That is one reason why the form, as Cameron Buchanan mentioned, is quite complex.
I mentioned that we will put in place the review process, which builds on the introduction of independent mobility assessments, carried out by occupational therapists. It will no longer be for personal GPs or nurses to make assessments; rather, there will be independent mobility assessments. That was what the UK-wide review came back with.
The existing legislation is clear that the assessment will be carried out by an independent health professional with the correct skills and experience to determine a person’s functional mobility, which is the crucial criterion for the awarding of a blue badge. The implementation of IMAs is being closely monitored, particularly in light of the recent welfare changes.
The Scottish Government is pleased with the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s report. The provisions will provide local authorities with powers that they can use as part of their existing arrangements for parking enforcement and apply as they consider necessary. Importantly, the bill responds to the views of badge holders. Once again, I congratulate Dennis Robertson on the work that he has done so far.
17:21
I thank members for taking part in the debate, and I thank the minister for responding to some of the issues that members raised.
I can offer some degree of reassurance on the sensitivity of confiscations, which we discussed quite a lot with the review group. I have been reassured that training already exists in local authorities, such as disability awareness training and training on engaging with the public in areas of conflict. I am quite content with the training that is in place.
Confiscation of any blue badge will be done only as a last resort. Whether a badge is confiscated by the police or an enforcement officer, that will happen only if the confiscator is absolutely sure that the badge has been tampered with, has been used fraudulently, or is in the possession of someone who should not have it.
Training and information for blue badge holders was also raised by members. Cameron Buchanan is absolutely right about the booklet that goes with the blue badge. I think that, when the majority of people get a blue badge, they look at the blue badge and put the information booklet in the drawer. They are not really aware of all the responsibilities that they have as a blue badge holder, and we need to ensure that they are aware of those responsibilities. The top 10 tips, which we are looking to produce, will be produced with the enforcement and review group that we are working with.
It was suggested during evidence taking that it may be an idea to get folk to sign and say that they have understood the guidance. Will the review group look to see whether that is possible and whether it would work?
Mr Stewart makes a valid point, and it is certainly something that the review group will consider. That is perhaps one aspect of trying to ensure that badge holders are aware of their responsibilities.
I started on this journey about 18 months ago and in the time since then I have travelled across the country to engage with various groups, people with disabilities and COSLA representatives. People with disabilities who are badge holders are saying that they require a change in the current legislation. I believe that, to an extent, they are content with the proposals, because the current enforcement powers are not sufficient. At the moment, a traffic warden or enforcement officer can approach someone and ask to see their badge, but if that warden or officer believes that the badge is being used fraudulently, they cannot confiscate it. Instead, they actually have to wait for a police officer to arrive, by which time the driver might have driven off. Surely that is wrong. We need the new powers in the bill to ensure that, when we are absolutely convinced that badges are being misused, they can be withdrawn.
Cameron Buchanan said that he is slightly concerned about aspects of identification with regard to non-uniformed officers, but I do not believe that that presents a problem. I sometimes think that being approached by someone in uniform can raise greater anxiety among some members of the public. In any event, someone who is not in uniform can provide the appropriate identification. If a person is concerned, they can ask for further identification. As far as I am aware, most enforcement officers have a radio with them and can probably call a central office to provide confirmation of identification.
I believe that the steps in the bill are proportionate and appropriate. I believe that the review process, which has been mentioned, is the right thing to do. At present, there is no statutory provision for a review although, since we started on this journey, the majority of local authorities have introduced a review process. If a person has been denied a badge, they will be able to appeal. I am not concerned that the appeal will be to the same local authority, because it will go to a different person in the authority—perhaps the line manager of the person who made the original decision or someone else. The decision will be based on criteria and guidance and, if a person does not meet the criteria for having a blue badge, their application will be denied. We also need to ensure that those who can be passported into the blue badge system know about that.
There are many stories of misuse, but the one that probably angers me more than any other is about a person who had a blue badge and who was housebound but whose family members used the badge without ever taking the badge holder out. That might be an extreme case, but we need to ensure that badges are used appropriately. Third-party misuse is not acceptable. We should say that it is not acceptable to misuse a blue badge.
Cameron Buchanan mentioned people just nipping out to the shop and inadvertently leaving a blue badge on the dashboard. That is fine but, with the central database system, we have a method of recording the incidents that take place so, if there is persistent misuse, the enforcement officer or police officer will have that information to hand.
I believe that the Parliament wants the bill to progress. It has been my absolute pleasure to bring this debate to the chamber. I thank the team from Transport Scotland, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the minister, and I ask members to support the motion in my name.