Police Scotland Traffic Wardens
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-08944, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on Police Scotland traffic wardens. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes calls against the removal of Police Scotland traffic wardens from local authority areas; understands that for local authority areas without decriminalised parking enforcement this change in legislation will present considerable operational and budgetary challenges; notes the case of Stirling Council, which, it understands, will have to find nearly £200,000 from its already stretched budgets to fund traffic wardens in the area; believes that Police Scotland is unfairly moving cuts from their budgets onto those of local authorities; considers that the current schedule for the removal of Police Scotland traffic wardens has been rushed, giving local authorities little time to introduce a replacement service, and recognises the possible road safety issues of police officers attending only incidents of dangerous parking.
17:22
I thank all members who signed my motion and therefore allowed this important debate to take place.
When a centralised police force for Scotland was first proposed, there were warnings from many quarters about what the consequences might be. Nearly a year since its inception, many of those concerns have been borne out by experience.
Taking what was essentially a locally run and locally accountable service and directing it from the centre was bound to create problems. So far we have had the closure of vital services including public counters and police control rooms, and now local authorities are faced with the removal of Police Scotland traffic wardens.
For the minority of local authorities with decriminalised parking systems already in place, the move might be non-controversial, but for the majority of councils—18 out of 32—that do not have decriminalised parking enforcement, it has proved controversial.
I will illustrate the problem in my own parliamentary region, because I believe that the situation that Stirling Council faces is demonstrative of the wider Scottish picture. In December, Police Scotland informed Stirling Council that it would withdraw traffic wardens on 4 February. After a short review period, that was eventually extended to 28 February—the end of this week.
The suddenness of the decision has taken many councils by surprise. It must be remembered that all this has happened without any form of open consultation.
Stirling Council is not alone in not having a decriminalised parking system, as there are 17 other local authorities in the same boat, including Scottish Borders Council, Highland Council and Clackmannanshire Council.
Decriminalised parking is certainly a solution, but it could take nearly two years to roll out, as the process would require a full consultation, using the considerable time and resources of a community engagement officer. It is difficult to cost that, but the final total could run to thousands of pounds.
In Stirling, Police Scotland has offered to supply a temporary warden service at a cost of up to £90,000 per year during the interim period. However, all the revenue raised in the form of tickets and fines will be channelled into the central Government purse, which negates any chance of the interim service paying for itself. If Stirling Council were to employ its own wardens during the interim period, it would cost it nearly £200,000 per year.
My concern is that the withdrawal of the service is all about saving money and not about providing the best possible service. Police Scotland is shifting money off its books on to the budgets of local authorities. At a time of spending restraint, such an approach appears to be grossly irresponsible.
Ironically, despite the removal of civilian Police Scotland traffic wardens, police officers will still have to attend incidents of dangerous parking, which could result in their valuable time being used to deal with incidents that were previously dealt with by civilian staff. That is a false economy.
In the past five years, Police Scotland traffic wardens have dished out more than 11,000 parking fines in Stirling. The service has helped to make the town centre more navigable and has increased pedestrian safety. The loss of that service could result in chaos.
On the flipside of the debate is the role of private parking firms. Take the example of Edinburgh. Between 2010 and 2012, wardens from the private firm NSL Ltd worked 24 hours a day and issued more than 388,000 fines, but it later emerged that one in six of those was handed out wrongly.
There is a danger that, in some places, police wardens will be replaced by target-driven firms that have only profit in mind. That has the potential to hit town centres, as overzealous wardens turn away shoppers.
Balance is crucial when it comes to parking enforcement. Charges must act as a deterrent to those who are thinking of parking irresponsibly while allowing traffic to flow more smoothly. However, if charges turn too much in the direction of revenue raising, town centres could become empty. Police Scotland traffic wardens have a great record of maintaining that balance and their loss could prove fatal for many small businesses, particularly those in some of our smaller towns throughout Scotland.
However, what really concerns me about the move is the rushed nature of the change and the lack of any efforts to engage locally or to conduct an open consultation. By removing wardens, Police Scotland has prioritised national considerations over the interests of individual councils. I fully accept that it is trying to trim its budget and I think that most councils would agree that it is a reasonable step, but they object to the way in which the matter has been handled.
Police Scotland is passing the burden on to local authorities without giving them proper time to introduce an alternative approach. By preventing councils from taking part in an open consultation and foisting the changes on local authorities so quickly, Police Scotland has given the impression that, no matter what was said, it would railroad the changes through. As a result, it will have to work hard to regain the trust of local authorities, councillors and affected residents.
It is incumbent on the Scottish Government to step in to tell Police Scotland to think again and to ask it to delay the withdrawal of traffic wardens and to allow those councils that wish to pursue decriminalisation the time to do so without loss of service. Otherwise it is no exaggeration to say that we could face chaos on our streets.
17:28
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Police Scotland traffic wardens, particularly as Police Scotland’s decision to withdraw traffic warden services affects my constituency of Stirling, as Murdo Fraser mentioned.
The review and the withdrawal have been the subject of some discussion at Stirling Council and in the local press. I hope that Murdo Fraser will forgive me for not signing his motion, but it does not truly reflect the whole of the Stirling situation. Nevertheless, he deserves to be sincerely congratulated on obtaining members’ business time to air the matter.
It is clear that the Labour and Tory councillors who, together, form the administration at Stirling Council have been extremely critical of Police Scotland in committee meetings and statements to the local press. It is also fair to say that Police Scotland has not covered itself in glory in the process. However, I am sure that it and Stirling Council could learn something from the process that would help to improve how they deal with each other and other interested stakeholders on such matters in future.
It is certainly true that the Scottish Government promoted a single police force for Scotland, which ensures that efficiencies can be made and that the funding that the police receive is maximised to achieve the objective, which we all share, of keeping our communities safe. As we know, that funding has, of course, helped to retain 1,000 extra police officers and has helped the Scottish Government and the police to get crime down to a 39-year low. However, it was always inevitable that there would be some standardisation of services throughout the country.
Practice across Scotland has varied with regard to wardens, as Murdo Fraser outlined. With the advent of the single police force, it was inevitable that the issue would require resolution and that it would lead to the introduction of more common practice. However, I have no doubt, given the way in which the issue has unfolded in Stirling, that it could have been handled better by Police Scotland as well as Stirling Council. I will deal with that in a moment, but first I emphasise the fact that Police Scotland has made it clear that it will continue to enforce the law by addressing parking that is considered to be dangerous or obstructive and in respect of blue-badge disabled parking.
Stirling councillors have protested about timescales. However, Police Scotland wrote to all councillors in June 2013 to inform them that a review of traffic warden provision was under way—I have a copy of the letter with me. Therefore, from June 2103, there was nothing to stop Stirling Council taking a much more pragmatic and proactive approach. The council’s public safety sub-committee could have reacted to the letter had it been so minded. Instead, no action was taken before it received a further letter, which, as Murdo Fraser said, was issued by Police Scotland on 1 October 2013.
Much of the criticism that is levelled at Police Scotland by Stirling Council administration’s councillors is based on complaints that they have had insufficient time to implement changes that would mean that the duties could be undertaken by Stirling Council. Although Police Scotland could have dealt with the matter more effectively, it is also clear that the council could have taken action earlier. I am somewhat surprised, given that a clear heads-up regarding potential changes was provided by Police Scotland in June 2013, that no preparatory work was begun by the council to take on traffic warden responsibilities.
There are good reasons why local authority enforcement is the better choice and why it is, in fact, the right way to go. For instance, historically, when local authorities are responsible, enforcement levels are shown to be higher. I am, therefore, surprised that the council was not faster out of its blocks in trying to bring traffic warden services under its control by immediately reacting in a more positive way to the letter from Police Scotland in June.
Under the current arrangements, with parking offences considered criminal offences, fines go to the Treasury. Under local authority enforcement, the local authorities themselves accrue the money that is generated in fines. Therefore, any revenues that are raised help with the provision of local services rather than swelling the coffers of the Treasury. Keeping that money in the local area would be a good thing.
I am probably stretching your patience, Presiding Officer, so I will come to a close.
I know that there is a lot to be learned by both sides. They are now talking a lot more constructively, and I hope that there is a sensible outcome at the end.
17:33
There is a certain irony in rising to defend traffic wardens, who are often the butt of jokes or worse. However, like so many things in life, perhaps we do not appreciate traffic wardens until we have lost them. Indeed, the caricature of traffic wardens largely lies in city parking problems, but Scotland is a nation of towns and villages, which is where the greatest problems with this decision lie.
In my constituency, which is a good example of what I am talking about, five towns—Haddington, Tranent, Prestonpans, North Berwick and Dunbar—already have significant parking problems. They are all centres for a rural hinterland and all have limited bus services, which mostly link the towns to the city rather than to the surrounding area. There is therefore little alternative for people who want to come into the towns other than to bring their cars.
North Berwick in particular already has bad parking problems, and only last week the community council in Haddington was talking about traffic chaos. That is the situation at a time when we still have traffic wardens, and it is partly because we now have only very few traffic wardens in East Lothian—I think that we have two police traffic wardens. However, at least there are some, and parkers know that there is the possibility that they will be ticketed if they park illegally.
Some would think that we have little to complain about in East Lothian, as on-street parking is free in all those towns, but as I have said, because there are very few alternatives, I do not think that imposing charges would reduce parking; rather, it would simply impose a burden on those who need to go into town for social or business reasons.
Waiting is limited in all those towns. That system has worked well for a good number of years, but it depends on people believing that it is possible that they will receive a ticket if they stay beyond the limited waiting time.
As Mr Fraser indicated, it is not, of course, just a question of inconvenience to motorists. There are also safety issues, and local businesses depend on their customers being able to find a place to park. That is certainly the case in the summer in North Berwick, for example. Local businesses already complain that, on occasion, visitors come to North Berwick, try to find a parking place, fail, leave and go somewhere else. That situation would surely only get worse without traffic wardens.
Those town centres are already vulnerable and fragile. They are struggling with all the issues that we know about, such as competition from supermarkets, changing lifestyles and commuter lifestyles that mean that people do not stay in the towns in which they live except at night. They have not been supported—rather, they have been undermined—by a number of arbitrary decisions by the Scottish Government, such as the closure of the local court in Haddington and the consequent closure of the fiscal’s office in the centre of town. That town will now see the wardens go and the potential for traffic chaos, as Mr Fraser outlined. I am afraid that, while that has happened, the Scottish ministers have simply looked the other way, washed their hands, and said, “These are decisions for the bodies concerned, and there is nothing we can do.”
None of the options is particularly palatable for the council. As Mr Fraser outlined, it could spend a great deal of money employing its own traffic wardens or perhaps open its citizens up to privatised traffic wardens who are driven by incentives. I thought that Mr Fraser might have been more in favour of that, but he eloquently explained why it would be a bad idea.
The truth is that we are talking about a classic example in the public sector of cutting off its nose to spite its face or robbing Peter to pay Paul. The police are looking to save money, removing costs and simply pushing them on to a local authority. One of the ironies is that the police are doing that in order to maintain the numbers of police officers, some of whom are also funded by the local authority. That is not fair, helpful or effective. Police Scotland should think again, and the minister should ask it to do that.
17:38
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this important debate.
From the perspective of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Police Scotland, the cessation of the traffic warden service earlier this month establishes a uniform approach to parking enforcement across the country. However, what that one-size-fits-all policy has actually achieved is inconsistency of service provision, and it invites anarchic parking in towns and cities throughout Scotland. The reform will mean that, in the majority of the country for the foreseeable future at least, high-street businesses could suffer as customers are unable to find parking places. The vibrancy of our town centres will be diminished if people believe that it is easier to visit out-of-town shopping facilities.
Unregulated parking also poses obstacles and significant dangers to elderly people, those with disabilities and young families. The misuse of dedicated spaces and parking on pavements and over dropped kerbs can make streets inaccessible to large sections of our society, and forcing pedestrians on to the road and in close proximity to moving traffic jeopardises their safety and risks casualties. Such scenarios seem no longer to be of interest to the police. That has led organisations such as Living Streets and Guide Dogs Scotland to refer to the potential for parking pandemonium.
It strikes me that the swift timetable for the implementation of the reform simply does not cohere with the practical needs of our communities and the length of time that it takes to legislate. From the Borders to the northern isles, councils are not ready or able to step in to fill the parking enforcement void left by the police.
Transport Scotland says that it takes 18 months to complete the decriminalisation process, from the local authority feasibility study to when the Scottish statutory instrument comes into force. Taking into account the initial decision-making process and the hiring and training, we can see that it could be 30 months before local authorities are in a position to take on responsibility for parking enforcement. Reports suggest that that has already led to limited backtracking in some areas.
More importantly, local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have highlighted that the decriminalisation of parking enforcement is only viable and affordable in those areas where there is a significant amount of on-street charged parking; otherwise, the income from penalties will not cover the management and enforcement costs, let alone pay for the associated transport improvements. My region of Aberdeenshire has lost six traffic wardens, yet I understand that the council, for the reasons I mentioned, has no plans to pursue decriminalisation or introduce wardens in the foreseeable future.
The reform risks establishing a permanent urban-rural divide in enforcement. Indeed, about half the local authorities in Scotland face Hobson’s choice: decriminalise parking enforcement or relinquish the service—not just temporarily but permanently. Withdrawing from extracurricular activities is one thing, but Police Scotland’s failure to enforce the law—its failure to fulfil the full policing curriculum—in order to suit its own strategic priorities is quite another.
The manner in which reforms are being conducted leaves a great deal to be desired. Traffic wardens, police control rooms, service centres, public counter closures—a unilateralist approach to decision making is evident in each case. Once integral to the process, public consultations are now token and we have only a nod in the direction of community planning partners.
The withdrawal of such services in favour of a narrow, enforcement-based national policing model demonstrates a failure to understand the needs of local communities and circumstances. It demonstrates that Police Scotland’s national priorities take precedence and it shows a worrying willingness to shirk responsibilities.
17:42
Yet again this Parliament finds itself debating another set of cuts made by Police Scotland. On top of the loss of civilian staff and the closure of station counters and emergency control rooms, the issue of traffic wardens is now the latest causing concern. I therefore congratulate my colleague Murdo Fraser on bringing this important debate to the Parliament.
Given that its budget is being cut, it was only a matter of time before Police Scotland identified withdrawal of its parking duties as a way that savings could be made. That was virtually a foregone conclusion, especially as a minority of local authorities have already decriminalised parking enforcement. However, as a number of members have said, the way in which the change has been implemented and managed has been less than satisfactory, for the following reasons.
There is a real concern that local authorities have not been given sufficient time to put in place contingency plans. After only a short review period, in December Police Scotland notified councils of its intention to withdraw its traffic warden service this month. There has also been a lack of open consultation, about which councils and COSLA have complained in writing to the Justice Committee.
Will the member give way?
I do not think that I will be able to, unless there is leeway. I am very short on time, and my speech will take the full four minutes.
I could give a minute’s leeway.
I give way to Bruce Crawford.
I wonder whether Margaret Mitchell listened to what I said about the Stirling situation. It was in June 2013 that Stirling councillors were informed about this potential way forward.
June to December, to make various contingency plans, is not quite enough, especially with the kind of budgets that local government is currently looking at.
Worse still, the move will result in uncertainty over parking enforcement, particularly as it takes councils around two years to apply for decriminalised parking enforcement status. Until then, the only service that will be provided will be by police officers intervening if parking is dangerous or significantly obstructive.
It seems, therefore, that the withdrawal of the service is primarily about saving money. Significantly, it also reveals how Police Scotland prioritises national considerations over the interests of individual councils. In reality, as Murdo Fraser said, the move will be a false economy. Police will still have responsibility for some traffic enforcement, which means that higher-paid police officers will be required to deal with parking issues that were previously dealt with by civilian traffic wardens on lower wages.
Falkirk Council, which is in my Central Scotland region, responded to a COSLA survey to say that the withdrawal of the service will lead to congestion in town centres because of a lack of enforcement of waiting restrictions, and to possible road safety issues. North Lanarkshire Council has been forced to employ wardens at a cost of £180,000 and set-up costs of £120,000, which will be met from fine income and from money taken from roads budgets.
Given that more than 100,000 fines are issued in the former Central Scotland Police area each year, the operation is obviously a considerable one and it will now need to be paid for by local authorities. In addition, councillors who have expressed concern that the move could result in chaos in our town centres have simply been ignored.
The fact is that enforcement still needs to be carried out, and councils, which are already facing financial pressures and which have no additional resources to do so, are left with the problem. In light of the concerns, the decision needs to be reviewed, so I very much look forward to the minister’s comments at the close of the debate.
17:46
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the Parliament, and I acknowledge his track record on the issue. He recently raised the issue at general question time, when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice provided a rather illuminating response about the situation in Fife, when in fact the question was about the circumstances in Stirling. I was told by the cabinet secretary that there is only one traffic warden in Orkney, which came as news to me, as I am sure that I have seen one in both Kirkwall and Stromness. I have to say that neither of those responses inspired a great deal of confidence.
As Murdo Fraser said, the option that is being posited for many local authorities is to go down the route of decriminalisation but, as Alison McInnes and Iain Gray alluded to, that is not a viable option in many rural communities such as the ones that I represent. There is little prospect of being able to recoup anything like the costs of running the service through fines, so that is wholly impractical. The measure runs counter to many of the initiatives that Orkney Islands Council and the community planning partnership in the area are embarked on to rejuvenate town centres—I think that Iain Gray made a similar point. It also runs counter to many of the initiatives to which Living Streets has pointed that aim to make town centres more accessible and less dangerous places.
We have heard that one size does not fit all. I am conscious that unique local circumstances are at play in Orkney, and that the traffic wardens in Kirkwall and Stromness have a wide range of responsibilities that go far beyond parking enforcement. Even if the budget were to be freed up to allow the change to happen, council employees would not have the authority to carry out those duties, which include directing traffic at ferry entry points, agriculture shows and funerals and responsibilities in relation to road traffic accidents. As a number of members have mentioned, it would simply fall to police officers to perform those duties, which strikes me as more than a false economy.
In response to the questions that Murdo Fraser and I raised two or three weeks ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice suggested that the matter is for Police Scotland. However, as Orkney Islands Council has made clear to me, previously Scottish Government funding came directly to the council and was then, under agreement with the Northern Joint Police Board, requisitioned to pay for policing services, including traffic wardens. The Scottish Government now pays the funding directly to Police Scotland, and Orkney Islands Council considers that payment to include funds for the services that were previously provided.
There is a compelling case for ministers to re-engage with Police Scotland and to ask it to think again, particularly in those areas where the route of decriminalisation will not provide an answer on the delivery of the services.
I once again thank Murdo Fraser for bringing the debate to the chamber. I have been encouraged by colleagues’ comments. Police Scotland needs to rethink the matter.
17:50
I thank Murdo Fraser for securing the debate. I congratulate colleagues on raising many of the issues that I would have raised, so they will be pleased to know that I will not labour those points at this time of the evening. However, I pay particular heed to Bruce Crawford and his wonderful attempt to paper over the cracks in how the matter has been dealt with. It makes it very difficult for people such as me, who support the concept of a single police force, when evidence is offered of a lack of sensitivity and consideration before deciding issues that affect local communities.
It was only a few weeks ago in the chamber that we discussed cycling and indicated that we need to make our highways a safer environment for people to cycle on. For some of the areas that I represent in South Scotland, parking is an issue and dealing with it would enable those who would cycle in our towns to make their journeys safely.
In Dumfries, until recently, there were six traffic wardens. In a matter of months, those six traffic wardens dwindled to two, and it now appears that none will be available to perform duties in Dumfries. Dumfries is, like some of the other areas that members described, a very busy market town, which attracts, thankfully, many visitors, most of whom arrive by car. The town centre’s layout is centuries old and not particularly amenable to traffic passing through. It is therefore important that enforcement is managed sensitively and is timely. It is unreasonable to expect Police Scotland to provide uniformed support because of those motorists who will take advantage of the fact that traffic wardens are no longer on patrol across the town. The expectation that those duties will be picked up by the local authority in the short term is not an answer as far as I can see. Where was the plan that should have been shared with each of the local authorities to enable discussions to be held in good time? The situation that we are in has been three years in the planning; there could have been many discussions behind the scenes to make preparations.
A lot has been said about consultation. It is quite evident that whatever consultation took place, it was not timely or productive; it was not a consultation that drew people on board and made them fully aware of the impact of what was planned. Where was the partnership working that we hear so much about, when all the partners gather together to discuss the problems that they all face? A letter in the post indicating a review shortly after a change in the national policing arrangements is hardly a red light to say, “Wake up—something is happening quickly.” That did not happen. Indeed, the handover has left many local authorities holding the baby and they must provide a solution with very few facilities with which to make the provision effective.
I hope that the minister will have heard the complaints that have been made by members around the chamber. I hope that those complaints impact on how Police Scotland negotiates its way forward on the matter. We know that the Government has demanded £60 million in savings and that that has probably been the driver for the action. Let us hope that further plans involve local authorities and accountability.
17:54
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on obtaining his members’ business debate. He knows that I am rarely likely to be troubled by traffic wardens, whether they are from the police or elsewhere—I do not know whether one ought to declare a non-interest; in fairness I should do so.
Police Scotland’s purpose, as everyone knows, is to improve the safety and wellbeing of the people and communities of Scotland. I assure Graeme Pearson that I am certain that Police Scotland is monitoring the debate and will take note of all comments. Its focus is on keeping people safe, as was always the case before the forces came together to form one force, and that is at the heart of everything that it does. It contributes to our national strategic objective of a safer, stronger Scotland.
Members would expect me to say that the Scottish Government, working with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority, is committed to protecting and supporting front-line services. Crime is at a 39-year low, and that is supported by our commitment to 1,000 extra officers in our communities compared with 2007. Local policing remains the bedrock; local communities and councillors have more access than ever to the police and can engage through designated local commanders, one for each of the 14 divisions, and through local policing plans, one for each of the 353 council wards.
It is for Police Scotland to decide how best to use the resources that are available to it and to take the operational decisions that keep the people of Scotland safe, as was the case when we had eight forces, prior to Police Scotland’s coming into being. It is of course for the Scottish Police Authority to hold Police Scotland to account for the decisions that it takes.
The decision on dedicated traffic wardens reflects Police Scotland’s purpose, its focus on the effective use of resources and value for money in the service that it provides, and its powerful commitment to the key aim of keeping people safe. Let us be clear: in all local authority areas Police Scotland will continue to tackle dangerous and obstructive parking; in non-decriminalised parking enforcement areas it will continue to work positively in partnership to take a targeted approach to priority issues; and it will continue to pay particular attention to offences in disabled parking bays and abuses of the blue badge scheme.
It might be useful to put the issue into perspective. The approach will not lead to complete chaos on the streets, as some people have claimed. Why? It might surprise members to hear that the average number of tickets issued over a year by police and traffic wardens in the 32 local authorities—throughout the entire area of Scotland—equates to just 2.5 tickets a day. If we take weekends out of the equation, on average only 3.5 tickets are issued per day.
It is for local authorities to set their priorities and deliver on them within the resources available, having first fulfilled statutory obligations. In that regard, the Scottish Government is providing local government in Scotland with more than £10.3 billion in 2013-14. The issue that we are considering, like many others, presents an opportunity for local authorities to consider sharing services to realise efficiencies. For example, authorities might share back-office functions or functions to do with enforcement officers’ roles and responsibilities.
I talked about the number of tickets that are issued in Scotland. In The Courier on 13 February, Murdo Fraser claimed that ending Stirling’s Police Scotland traffic warden service would bring the town to a standstill—an observation based on an average of fewer than seven tickets issued per day in Stirling.
Does the minister accept that there is a deterrent effect to having traffic wardens on the streets? If traffic wardens are removed and people know that they have been removed, people will be far more likely to park inappropriately than is currently the case.
I have comments to make that are germane to Murdo Fraser’s intervention, which I will come to a little later.
Bruce Crawford’s comments were welcome. It is the case that the traffic warden review began in May last year. There was a five-month period between that date and the date of the SPA’s final decision. That five-month period appears to have been swept aside; I wonder about the extent of local authorities’ engagement during that period.
I confess that I waited with interest to see which MSPs would turn up to this debate, because many local authorities have been successfully operating DPEs for a number of years—indeed, Murdo Fraser and I both live in one such area. Perth, like many cities, has traffic problems, but I am not aware of there being any chaos. If that had been the case, I am sure that Murdo Fraser would have been quick to refer to it.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Is Murdo Fraser going to refer to traffic chaos in Perth?
I do not dispute that local authorities can go down the decriminalisation route if they so wish, but the problem is that that process can take two years or more to progress, as I pointed out. What will happen in the interim?
I will make pertinent points about that.
It is informative that, in June 2011, the then Strathclyde Police withdrew the police traffic warden system from the whole of Strathclyde. Of the 12 local authorities in the area, three had decriminalised parking enforcement in place and four have adopted DPE since. Inverclyde Council and Argyll and Bute Council are applying for DPE, while North Ayrshire Council, North Lanarkshire Council and West Dunbartonshire Council have not yet decided whether to apply for it.
There was no evidence of an outcry at the time. There were no debates and no motions—nothing. That is remarkable because, if various members’ predictions of chaos and confusion are to be believed, I am surprised that we have not heard references to the terrible Strathclyde experience.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I want to get on and say a few more things before I finish.
The Scottish Government is committed to working with local authorities and Police Scotland to look at the decision’s impact and to support the process towards DPE when there is agreement to make progress on that. That dialogue has begun. Discussions have taken place in a number of areas. Police Scotland has put in place local arrangements to continue the provision of a traffic warden service in West Lothian and Midlothian, and it is close to reaching agreement with Stirling Council, Falkirk Council and Highland Council—for Inverness—on the continued provision of a traffic warden service for up to two years, with the support of local authority funding.
I reject the motion. Local authorities have had since 1997 to consider their position on parking enforcement. [Interruption.] Murdo Fraser laughs, but the Parliament needs to be reminded that the previous Conservative Government introduced the relevant legislation. That point was curiously missing from his speech.
Police Scotland has demonstrated that for it to continue to provide the service would not be value for money for the communities that it serves. Neither the Scottish Government nor Police Scotland is just walking away. Engagement has been on-going since May last year and we are keen for that to continue, to ensure that any impact of the action has no detrimental effect on Scotland’s people and businesses.
Meeting closed at 18:02.