Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3128, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill.
It is with great pleasure that I open today's debate. I begin by paying tribute to my colleague Jackie Baillie, whose unstinting commitment to this cause has brought us to this stage. She has ensured that Parliament takes the needs of disabled people seriously. Members of all parties will no doubt want to echo those thanks in sending Jackie Baillie our best wishes at this difficult time for her and her family.
I take this opportunity to echo that support for Jackie Baillie at this difficult time. I hope that there is the best possible outcome to the circumstances in which she finds herself.
I thank the minister for that.
Scotland has more than 230,000 blue badge holders, all of whom I imagine have faced difficulty at one time or another in accessing a disabled parking space to carry out day-to-day activities. I make no apologies for using the words of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's Euan Page, who said:
"for the vast majority of disabled people, disability happens during the life process … we live in a rapidly ageing society in Scotland."
The changes that the Parliament will make through the bill
"are of profound importance to everybody … and their families."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 2 September 2008; c 1069.]
During the stage 1 debate, David McLetchie summed up what we can achieve today. He said that the legislation
"will improve quality of life for many disabled people in Scotland."—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; c 12750.]
As others have stated, the bill will bring about that improvement by
"removing a persistent barrier to disabled people's participation in society."
Throughout the passage of the bill, we have learnt many things, not least of which is the priority that we should give to the issue. Enforcing disabled parking places is the number 1 issue that is discussed when disabled people gather, and the issue is top of the list of what disabled people consider are barriers to their getting out and living a life in Scotland in the same way as everyone else. This short member's bill can, and will, have a profound effect on people's lives.
When scrutinising the bill, the Local Government and Communities Committee heard time and again that action is now needed:
"the age of just relying on politeness has ended and the age of enforcement has come."
Members from all parties have indicated that the issue continually appears in their postbags—I certainly agree—and Parliament can rightly congratulate itself on taking the issue forward by putting into law, as I trust will happen later today, a bill that will improve the lot of so many people.
The bill's main policy objective is to prevent disabled parking places from being used by those who are not entitled to use them by providing the means and encouragement to make those places enforceable. The bill will provide the means to make enforceable all disabled street parking places that are required for disabled residents. We need to do that not only to deter those who are not entitled to park in bays reserved for disabled persons from doing so but to impose financial penalties on persistent abusers. Only in that way will a strong message be sent and a fairer society emerge.
I have seen many reports and photographs of abuse. It is clear that disabled persons parking bays are fair game across the board, even for a prominent human rights lawyer—indeed, even a ministerial Mondeo and police Panda cars have been spotted in those parking bays. People clearly deem their needs to be greater and more urgent than those of a disabled person.
As the unanimous support for the bill at stage 1 demonstrated, few would disagree that the aim of the bill is worthy, but some have queried the cost of implementation. I will take a few minutes to set the record straight. Some disquiet was expressed at the figures in the financial memorandum, and I think that it is fair to say that the comments were made in the face of a number of uncosted and unsubstantiated submissions from local authorities.
As requested, Jackie Baillie engaged with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in an attempt to identify the actual costs. The Scottish Parliament information centre undertook research on the private sector and English local authorities. COSLA was extremely helpful, and through SCOTS—the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland—Jackie Baillie endeavoured to obtain the relevant information. Every local authority was surveyed to seek its costing of the component parts of the work that would be required to convert bays. Although few authorities could provide accurate figures, many produced estimates, most of which were based on the cost of converting a single bay. A few authorities did better and produced clear and precise figures.
I make it clear that the earlier costings and all the revised costings that were discussed with COSLA derived directly from information and costings produced by local authorities. The figures in the policy memorandum were provided to Jackie Baillie by Fife Council and West Dunbartonshire Council, but SCOTS advised that the figures were incorrect. Following the SCOTS survey, revised figures were produced, some of which were used to produce new costings. When faced with the figures, SCOTS indicated that the information that Jackie Baillie had selected—which it had supplied—was incorrect. SCOTS supplied further figures, which—as members may already have guessed—it went on to say were incorrect.
What SCOTS did not do at any stage, but what Jackie Baillie did consistently with all the figures that she produced, was to apply a Scotland-wide best-practice and best-value approach. For example, if an authority quotes the cost of line painting at £50 and the private sector quote is as low as £25, it is clear that the maximum cost cannot be anywhere near the average cost of £108 that SCOTS produced. Indeed, 13 authorities claimed that line painting would cost £130, which was—coincidently—the figure in the SCOTS survey.
A similar best-value approach was taken for all the component costs. Again based on figures that the local authorities provided, the unit cost was calculated to be £209. The figure covers the cost of promoting an order, removing existing lines, remarking, and erecting signs. The following example shows the variation in the cost of promoting an order that SCOTS produced, with the figure ranging from £19 in Fife to £1,342 in East Renfrewshire. SCOTS subsequently indicated that the Fife figure was incorrect—perhaps the East Renfrewshire figure also needs further work.
Given that 45 per cent of disabled persons parking bays are appropriately marked, COSLA agreed that only 55 per cent of bays require all such work to be done. Again, based on a best-value approach and using the best figures that the local authorities supplied, Jackie Baillie calculated the unit cost for conversion at £119. The private sector and authorities south of the border have verified the figure as achievable, but SCOTS maintains that the information that it received from the authorities down south that it contacted is incorrect.
Doubt remains over the total number of disabled persons parking bays. We accept that there will be a year-on-year increase on the original 14,000 estimate. The figure was obtained directly from local authorities using freedom of information inquiries, but SCOTS maintains that the information supplied as a result of those inquiries is incorrect.
Less clear is the situation for the number of redundant bays. Again, revised figures were produced, although only a few can be relied on. After they were compared with the figures that resulted from the FOI inquiries—which, under FOI, are required to be accurate—it was estimated that there are perhaps 15,000 bays. Cutting to the bottom line, on a best-value basis, Jackie Baillie calculated the likely cost at around £2.5 million. Allowing for a reasonable margin of error of 20 per cent, we expect the cost to be no more than £3 million, although we expect the figure to reduce further if economies can be made. COSLA has indicated that no additional costs will arise for enforcement.
The SCOTS approach of averaging costs that the local authorities supplied has produced a figure greatly in excess of our calculations. We maintain our position that the SCOTS approach is fundamentally incorrect, given that it takes absolutely no regard of best practice or best value. In addition, we understand that in Northern Ireland all spaces were converted using existing budgets and without the need for additional central funding.
The minister was closely involved in the discussions with COSLA, either directly or through his officials, and we are indebted to him and his officials for their support. If Parliament passes the bill today, it will have agreed a financial resolution that sets out the necessary expenditure, and it will then fall to the minister to agree who gets what.
Concern was expressed at stage 1 that the timetable for implementation would place an excessive burden on local authorities, but the bill is not highly prescriptive. It requires authorities to identify in the first year existing advisory disabled street parking places in their area and start, but not complete, the process. Councils therefore have 12 months to identify existing bays that they themselves have installed. In reality, and if they start promptly once the bill receives royal assent, councils will have 18 months to do that. The timetable also has the positive impact of enabling authorities to spread costs across three financial years. I welcome the commitment that the minister made at stage 2 to take forward a public information campaign to ensure that people are aware of the new legislation.
The bill goes as far as possible to cover private car parks such those at supermarkets, sports facilities and other shopping complexes. In such places, the local authority is required to offer its services to make disabled persons parking bays enforceable but not to enforce the bays itself. Today, Asda celebrates a year of voluntarily enforcing disabled persons parking places, which it did in response to a growing number of complaints from customers and having exhausted its efforts to effect change through information campaigns. Asda says that the new scheme has resulted in a 60 per cent increase in the availability of disabled persons parking places at its stores. Having issued 1,400 penalty notices, Asda has raised £70,000 for charities. The will to make the system work exists in the private sector; it is now up to local authorities to work with it.
I assure members that the bill need not cost local authorities a penny. We believe that we are pushing at an open door and, through negotiations with private owners, the costs of implementation and enforcement should be covered—the example of Asda is there for all to see. As long as the abuse of disabled persons parking places is enforced and abusers are dissuaded, it is largely irrelevant who undertakes the enforcement.
On behalf of Jackie Baillie, I give special thanks to her staff and to Jillian Merchant in particular for their work, including the processing of 17,000 postcards in support of the bill. We thank the staff in the Parliament's non-Executive bills unit and David Cullum in particular for his attention to detail. My personal thanks are due to them for the full briefing that they have given me over the past few days.
As Hugh O'Donnell reminded members in the stage 1 debate, in the main it is society that disables people. I urge all members to follow the minister's example in supporting the bill. We want the Scottish Parliament to be recognised for taking the lead in making it clear that attitudes must change. Success for the bill will be measured not in the number of penalties that are imposed but in increased access for those in need. By passing the bill, the Parliament will remove
"a persistent barrier to disabled people's participation in society".
The ultimate goal is no abuse. I say to those who take a disabled person's parking place that, if they want to do that, they must take their disability, too. I have much pleasure in moving the motion in Jackie Baillie's name.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) bill be passed.
Given that virtually no additional time is available in the debate, I ask members to stick strictly to the guidance that is given to them.
I thank Jackie Baillie for introducing the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. Her member's bill is an important and much-needed piece of legislation. I regret that she cannot be in the chamber to see her bill passed by the Parliament, as I am confident that it will be. A bill that has reached stage 3 with no amendments is a significant indicator of the consensus across the Parliament on the need for it.
Of course, a member's bill does not reach this stage without significant effort on the part of the member and their staff. In her remarks, Karen Gillon gave proper recognition to the work that Jackie Baillie and her staff have undertaken.
We welcome the bill because, like Ms Baillie, we take the abuse of disabled parking bays extremely seriously. The Government shares Ms Baillie's commitment to helping disabled people throughout Scotland have access to parking, which should in turn improve the quality of their lives.
Some of my colleagues have stated in earlier debates on the bill that legislation is not always the answer. I agree, but unfortunately we have reached a stage at which the evidence suggests that we will provide a real deterrent only by moving from the use of advisory disabled parking places to ensuring that the appropriate parking places are enforceable. We hope that the bill will bring to an end the abuse of disabled parking spaces and will result in the general public seeing it as socially unacceptable to misuse those spaces.
At a time when changes in the social structure mean that people with disabilities are viewed as no different from anyone else in having to adapt to a more independent lifestyle, we want a system to be implemented that is fair and understood by all. Change will not happen overnight, as local authorities require to do quite a lot of work to implement the bill, but I expect that coverage of today's debate and of previous debates will raise awareness of the abuse of disabled parking places and may help to deter some of the thoughtless drivers who exploit the current lack of enforcement.
The bill covers on-street and off-street parking and requires local authorities to contact private car park owners with a view to their making arrangements for the provision of enforceable disabled parking places in their car parks. We very much welcome the work that Asda has done, which Ms Gillon mentioned. I am sure that the charities concerned will welcome the £70,000 that has been raised to serve their aims, although we hope that that figure will diminish because the higher it is the more abuse is taking place.
The bill will require local authorities to prepare annual reports on their performance in relation to their functions on parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The reports will include details of the action that local authorities have taken in fulfilling their duties under the bill, and I will ask my officials to consult local authorities on the drafting of guidance on the completion of annual reports. The adoption of a consistent approach will assist my officials in drawing up the Government's annual report, which is another requirement of the bill.
As we said in the stage 1 debate, the Government's position has always been one of support for the bill on the understanding that implementation costs are required that are more robust than the estimates in Jackie Baillie's financial memorandum. During that debate, I informed Parliament that my officials would facilitate meetings between Jackie Baillie and COSLA. Those meetings have taken place over the past few months, and I have attended several of them. My intention in doing so was to enforce the view that is shared by the Government and the member in charge of the bill that it is important for local authorities to engage seriously and robustly in the process of working out the costs involved.
It is obvious that a large amount of work was required to obtain a robust figure. As has been expressed several times, there is a lack of raw data to provide an instant figure. On previous occasions, Ms Baillie has mentioned that there are varying costs for the different elements of the work that is required to turn an advisory disabled parking place into an enforceable space as set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
Jackie Baillie agreed that her figure of £1.7 million was somewhat historical, and we have heard from Karen Gillon that the true figure is likely to be nearer £3 million. The local authorities still consider that to be on the low side and feel that, once geographic and regional variations are taken into account, the figure is more likely to be around £6 million. I am sure that Ms Gillon and Ms Baillie will agree that further work needs to be done to obtain an accurate figure for the number of spaces involved, including the number that will have to be removed. I am confident that further savings will be made through careful planning of the one-off national implementation programme.
To that effect, in the aftermath of today's debate and this evening's vote, in which I expect the bill to be passed, I will instruct my officials to continue to liaise with local authorities. They will ask the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland to address the issue of how to take account of economies of scale and best value as the implementation programme is progressed.
At stage 1, Parliament not only supported the general principles of the bill but agreed to the financial resolution that my colleague Mr Swinney laid. Given that that happened in the context of the numbers that were incorporated in Ms Baillie's financial memorandum, I would not expect the funding that the Government will make available in due course to depart radically from the numbers that the bill's sponsor has put forward, but I will not name a particular figure until further work has been done.
One of the first duties that the bill places on local authorities is to carry out an audit of all the advisory disabled parking places in their areas. The uncertainty that we have heard about justifies that action—indeed, it justifies the passing of the bill—and the bill gives local authorities a year to carry out the audit. Once it has been completed, we will have a better idea of the number of spaces that require to be made enforceable.
Some suggestion has been made that the bill does not go far enough in that it does not tackle the abuse of the blue badge scheme by amending the blue badge regulations. The tight scope of the bill would not allow it to cover such matters, but members will be aware that the Department for Transport recently reviewed the blue badge scheme in England. That review will result in the making of changes over the next five years that will radically improve the scheme and provide a better service for severely disabled people. I can reassure members that my officials are working closely with colleagues in the DFT and that, with colleagues from the National Assembly for Wales and other key stakeholders, they will take part in a steering committee that the DFT has set up.
I know that the sponsoring of the bill has taken Ms Baillie on a long and sometimes interesting journey, on which she has travelled to places that she probably did not imagine that she would reach. I believe that she will think that it was worth the effort and that the bill will get not just the Government's backing but the full support of Parliament in this evening's vote. That vote should bring an end to the beginning of the process, but a lot of work has still to be done. I ask members to inform their constituents that changes will come, but not overnight. I commend the motion to Parliament.
I state for the record that Labour fully supports Jackie Baillie's Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill and that we are grateful for the co-operation that Jackie Baillie has received from the minister and his civil servants. We are delighted that the bill has secured overwhelming support from all sides, which means that it will be passed this evening.
The process of bringing a member's bill to fruition—which not many members have achieved—is arduous and requires a great deal of work by the member in charge of the bill and their staff, so it is entirely appropriate, as Karen Gillon did, to congratulate Jackie Baillie and her staff on their achievement. It is also appropriate to thank the non-Executive bills unit, the committee clerks and the many others who have helped during the passage of the bill.
The key people whom we must acknowledge are the disability groups and the individuals with disabilities who have campaigned over the years for something to be done about the difficulties that they and their families have faced in using disabled persons parking bays. They identified a series of problems that they had experienced at first hand: misuse of advisory parking bays outside residential property by people who have no right to use them; the lack of disabled persons bays in many locations, including shopping centres and workplaces; the unsuitability of the size of some bays for people who need equipment such as wheelchairs to allow them to get about; and the lack of enforcement, even in circumstances in which bays are statutory rather than advisory.
Jackie Baillie was able to marshal the information that was provided by groups and individuals, based on their direct experience, into an overwhelming case for change, which she was able to set out not just in the thorough consultation exercise before the bill was launched, but in her contributions at the various stages of its passage. Because the blue badge scheme and traffic regulation are reserved matters, the bill has had to focus on placing duties on local authorities rather than on the police, but the outcome is a package of measures that should make a significant difference in supporting the mobility of people with disabilities.
As a result of a successful postcard campaign—17,000 replies was not just a huge amount of work for Jackie Baillie's staff, but a significant achievement in carrying the campaign forward—every MSP has been made aware of the issues that are addressed by the bill, and of the strong support for it by their disabled constituents in particular. The number of postcards that I received may have been influenced by the facts that I represent the neighbouring constituency to Jackie Baillie's, and that there was considerable local publicity for her efforts, although the responses came from all over Scotland. Many colleagues in different parts of Scotland were contacted by constituents, who were keen to emphasise that the problems that the bill addresses require to be tackled and that thousands of disabled people throughout Scotland will be helped once the bill is passed.
At stage 1, David McLetchie said:
"If common courtesy, respect and sensitivity to people's needs were more prevalent in society we would not need laws to enforce disabled parking bays or spaces, and social norms and peer pressure would combine to ensure that disabled parking facilities were not abused."—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; c 12748.]
Regrettably, moral pressure to be a good citizen has not worked as well as it should, and we need to take steps on behalf of disabled people to ensure that their rights as citizens—the right of access to shops and workplaces and the right to conveniently drive to and from their own homes without undue inconvenience—are protected.
There are concerns about costs, which, as a former convener of the Finance Committee, I am clear should never be forgotten about. It is of concern that there was so much variation in the estimated costs. Although we have more information now than was available at stage 1, the range of estimates is still uncomfortably wide. We have already heard from Karen Gillon and the minister, as well as from local government, on that subject. I hope that the range of cost estimates will be significantly reduced as the provisions of the bill are implemented.
I am reminded, however, of a comment that was made to me by one of my constituents, Jackie Maciera. Jackie has been a wheelchair user for most of his life, but his determination to live a normal life despite his disability is deeply impressive. He said that dealing with his disability is partly a matter of overcoming the physical limitations with which he has to contend, but that it is also a matter of dealing with the behaviour of other people when they thoughtlessly, or sometimes deliberately, make things more difficult for him as a disabled person. He has learned to live with his disability and accepts that it is permanent, but it disappoints him when people make it more difficult for him to overcome the consequences of his disability, when it would be just as easy for them to be considerate.
A non-disabled person using a marked parking space outside the home of a disabled person, or the failure to provide for disabled people to go to the shops, the cinema or any other public facility by making enforced spaces available, is something that we need to address in order for us to be sure that we are being fully inclusive. People such as Jackie Maciera have overcome many of the barriers that are consequent on their disability, but we in Parliament can help him and people like him by approving the legislation.
Ultimately, the test of the legislation will be whether we do the right thing by some of the most vulnerable people in society—whether we do something that will improve their lives and assist them in making their individual contributions in whatever spheres they choose. Restrictions on mobility exist because of the abuses that were referred to in the consultation and evidence to the committee, but those abuses can be reduced by more effective enforcement and a more responsible approach by non-disabled drivers and local authorities. There is a need for the legislation to secure those improvements. On that basis, Labour supports the bill and looks forward to its being passed at decision time.
As I said at stage 1, it is a poor reflection on our society that legislation to deal with the problem of the abuse of parking bays should be considered necessary at all. Common courtesy and good manners should apply so that we treat people with disabilities with respect and consideration, and so that parking spaces that are designated for their exclusive use are not abused by the rest of us. Sadly, that is not the case, and the evidence that was presented to Parliament justifies legislative intervention. We have to conclude that if people will not behave in a considerate manner, the state—Parliament—has no option but to intervene to ensure that all our citizens are fairly treated and are not victims of the selfish or thoughtless behaviour of others.
That is why, like other members, I congratulate Jackie Baillie on championing this particular cause and on seeing the bill through to its final stage, at which it will have the support of Conservative members. As many members have noted, a lot of time and effort goes into a member's bill, so I commend Jackie Baillie and her team for their persistence and dedication in bringing the bill to this stage. I will, however, spare her further blushes, because a Conservative heaping praise on a Labour member is not the sort of testimonial that is highly sought after in her party.
There is one aspect of the bill of which I remain critical and that is its financial implications, which have already been discussed by members today. Members will recall the wide variation in the estimates of the costs that will fall on councils as a result of the measure. At one stage, the level of detailed scrutiny got down to the cost and colour of the paint that would be necessary to designate an enforceable parking bay. Ms Baillie and then the financial memorandum estimated that the cost throughout Scotland would be £1.7 million. That was based on estimates that Ms Baillie obtained from Fife and West Dunbartonshire councils. However, other councils, particularly Edinburgh and Glasgow, said that it would cost that much to do their cities alone, never mind the rest of the country. Highland Council seemed to think that it would take 12 person years of staff time to deal with the estimated 300 advisory bays in its area. That does not strike me as the greatest advertisement for the productivity of labour in the Highland Council area, but there it is.
More seriously, however, those disparities were supposed to be resolved in discussions between the member in charge of the bill—Jackie Baillie—the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the period since Parliament approved the bill at stage 1. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned—I am not much more enlightened following the speeches so far—we are not a great deal further forward in that regard.
Those discussions took place against the backcloth of the minister's statement to the Local Government and Communities Committee that the Scottish Government did not intend to make a commitment to put financial resources into the start-up costs. Further, as the minister reminded us, he said in the stage 1 debate that it was up to Jackie Baillie to negotiate with COSLA on the financial impact. It may be up to Jackie Baillie, as the member in charge of the bill, to ascertain further information for the enlightenment of members at later stages of the bill's parliamentary progress—we heard from Karen Gillon about the considerable efforts that were made to find further information—but it is not up to Jackie Baillie to fund the bill's cost. That is the responsibility of the individual councils on which those duties are being placed, and of the Scottish Government as the major provider of finance to our councils. As Des McNulty correctly said, the range of estimates of the cost of implementation of the bill remains "uncomfortably wide".
In that context, I note that the historic concordat recognises that in some instances—whether through the development of policy initiatives or for other reasons—there may be exceptional funding pressures that local authorities are unable to meet. In the honeyed obfuscations of the concordat, such difficulties are supposed to be "addressed jointly" as part of a "developing mature relationship" and so on and so forth. However, beneath all the blandness, the reality is that Parliament is placing further obligations on our councils, and those obligations have financial implications. Over the past nine years, when there have been rising levels of grants to councils in real terms, such obligations would have been much easier to absorb. However, they arise now against a backcloth in which funding for councils is likely to fall in real terms or may, at best, plateau. The implementation of the bill will not be pain-free, but that is not a reason to reject the bill. Equity may demand that it be part of the matrix of obligations that our councils have to meet, but we should recognise that there is a cost.
Some years ago, I went with a parliamentary delegation to the United States, where we discussed relationships between Governments, states and municipalities. A key issue was unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate arises when the federal Government passes a law that has financial implications for the states but fails to provide the additional federal funding to the states so that they can meet the costs of implementation. That situation is analogous to our situation with our councils. On a point of principle, we have to be very chary of situations in which we will a particular end but do not provide the means of implementing it. Over the next few years, we will have to be careful about not placing additional burdens on our councils.
I will end on a positive, rather than gloomy, note: I reiterate our support for the bill. I regret that legislation is necessary, and I regret that uncertainties remain over the cost, but I very much welcome the contribution that the bill will make to building an inclusive Scotland by improving the quality of life for people with disabilities.
I am pleased to open on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group in support of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. As a member of the Local Government and Communities committee, I have had the opportunity to look at the bill in detail over the past 20 months or so.
All our thoughts are with Jackie Baillie and her family at this most difficult of times. The Liberal Democrats congratulate her on bringing the bill forward, and we strongly agree with the principle behind it. The hard work that Ms Baillie and her staff have put in to bring the bill to fruition during this session of Parliament has been significant, as has been widely acknowledged throughout the chamber.
However, we have some concerns about the wildly varying estimates of the cost and administrative burden of the bill in terms of both on-street and off-street disabled persons parking bays. Others have expressed the same concern. The administrative burden on local authorities will prove to be significant, especially in the first year. All local authorities will be required to contact owners of private car parks, including supermarkets and out-of-town retail centres, to negotiate agreements to enable local authorities to promote orders that will make parking places for disabled persons enforceable. It is not clear from the evidence that was taken at committee whether that contact would simply be a couple of letters to each private company, or whether it would be a series of letters, visits and discussions.
Each local authority will be required to identify within its area every advisory off-street disabled persons parking space that exists on the date on which the provisions of the act come into force. Where such spaces are provided directly by the local authority, or are in car parks that are managed or provided for the local authority by a third party, the local authority will be required to begin the designation order process within 12 months of the act coming into force. Given the large administrative burden, that seems to be a very ambitious deadline indeed. Urban and rural local authorities that gave evidence to the committee expressed concerns about the requirement.
Each local authority will also be required, within three months of planning permission being granted, to begin the designation order process for any disabled persons parking places that are to be created in new developments in its area. Where local authorities have failed to secure agreement to pursue designation orders for new and existing off-street parking places they must, at least every two years, make another attempt to secure agreement to create enforceable parking places for those sites. Although the administrative burden would be most significant in the first year of the act coming into force, the on-going burden will not exactly be insignificant, either.
Another concern is about costs. It is estimated that the total national cost of implementing designation orders for all existing advisory on-street parking places is £1.75 million. That figure was based on an estimate of 14,000 advisory parking places with an average cost of £125. The Finance Committee concluded that the overall estimate of £1.75 million for promoting and implementing orders across Scotland is subject to significant doubt, which has been expressed this morning.
Glasgow City Council's written evidence indicated that it is
"extremely concerned at the substantial additional costs to the Council of setting up and enforcing the new arrangements envisaged by the Bill".
It estimates that there would be more than £2 million in set-up costs alone in the first year.
I understand Jim Tolson's concern about costs, but will he explain why his local authority—Fife Council—estimates that an enforced bay will cost £19, while East Renfrewshire Council estimates that it will cost £1,342? The member has experience of local authorities. Does he not feel that the gap seems to be wide and unreasonable?
I certainly agree with Karen Gillon that the gap is wide. I cannot speak for Fife Council, or for any other local authority, on how the figures have been arrived at, but the wide gap in estimates causes us all concern. We have to be concerned about taxpayers' money.
West Lothian Council said in its written evidence that the financial memorandum significantly underestimates the bill's cost implications for local authorities. It estimated that converting its 700 existing advisory places to enforceable ones would cost around £350,000. That is a unit cost of £500 for each place—not the £125 that I mentioned earlier. The council feels that such costs could not be met from within its existing resources.
On a more positive note, good practice was highlighted by Asda. For the past year, it has engaged private monitoring of its car parks and fines offenders £60 for misusing disabled persons parking spaces. Cynics may say that that is a money-making ploy by Asda, but according to David Paterson, its Scottish corporate affairs manager, Asda's policy has resulted in a 60 per cent increase in the availability of disabled persons parking spaces at its stores. After covering the running costs of its scheme, Asda has donated £70,000 to two United Kingdom charities. That is a good example—one that I hope other organisations will follow.
Although the Scottish Government has indicated that it will contribute to a public information campaign on the change in legislation, it must also clarify whether it will assist in funding the bill's implementation costs and, if so, to what extent. I will be grateful if the minister can give some reassurances that he will not leave local authorities in the lurch over either the cost or the administrative burden.
Despite some concerns, the Liberal Democrats look forward to successful implementation of the bill, which will make such a difference to the lives of nearly a quarter of a million Scots.
After the opening speeches, we now move to the debate. Speakers will be allowed a very tight six minutes.
I add my congratulations to those that have already been offered to Jackie Baillie. Her hard work and determination have brought the bill to this point. I regret that she is, for understandable reasons, unable to be here to lead today's debate.
As we have heard, the bill is relatively small, but will make a significant difference to the lives of people with disabilities. Of course, the bill should not be necessary. Most people respect bays that are clearly marked as being intended for citizens with disabilities, but the actions of a small minority of drivers who, often wilfully, disregard such bays have meant that the time has come when protection in law is necessary.
I am sure that all members have been visited by constituents who have shared their experiences of these issues. A constituent of mine is often afraid to leave home, because he knows that a neighbour will park in the disabled bay if it is left empty. Another constituent challenged another driver at a supermarket, only to be told, "It's raining, so first come, first served." Such constituents are the people who need the protection that the bill will undoubtedly provide.
This debate is not really about disability; it is about the prevention of an abuse. In the stage 1 debate, I raised the issue of the size of parking bays, which is of real concern because many disabled people must transfer to a wheelchair when they leave their cars and so need that little bit of extra space to transfer safely. That is one reason why bays for disabled people need to be protected. A system that makes bays enforceable will help to ensure that the spaces are of adequate size and are located appropriately.
As we know, the bill will require local authorities to pursue the owners of private car parks and attempt to reach agreement with them about providing bays for disabled people. In case any private operator should think that that will present them with a major problem, let me outline the experience of one company: Asda, as we have heard, has had a scheme up and running for over a year now. The store in my constituency, like other Asda stores, has the system of enforcement in place. The manager at Asda in Maryhill tells me that, for the first few months, they had to spend extra time and effort explaining that the bays were designated and why. However, they now find that the scheme enforces itself. Many shoppers have complimented the store on its approach, and it has not yet had to enforce the bays with fines. Car park operators should follow Asda's approach and be proactive, rather than wait for their local authority to get in touch. That might even win them more customers.
At stage 1, I also mentioned the consultation exercise that I conducted with the disability forum in my constituency. It has since had a name change, but it continues to do excellent work in the north of Glasgow. I am indebted to the forum for the insight that it has given me on this and many other subjects. It pointed out that it was one thing for us to pass legislation, but it asked how people were to find out about what it means for them. As the minister knows, I raised the idea of an awareness-raising campaign by means of an amendment at stage 2. I was happy to withdraw the amendment, given the minister's assurance that a communication plan would be drawn up, so I would be grateful if, in closing, he would tell us what the Government is planning in that respect. I am sure he agrees that, as my local Asda store has shown, good information is key to making the legislation work.
Also in the stage 1 debate, my colleague Mary Mulligan made the point that Parliament has as one of its central purposes the power and, indeed, the duty to legislate, although it is fair to say that we have been slightly legislation light in the past two years. One of Parliament's strengths is that members have the opportunity to introduce legislation that directly reflects their constituents' problems and experiences. The bill had its genesis in the experiences of Jackie Baillie's constituents in Dumbarton, but it will offer protection to citizens throughout Scotland—to other members' constituents and mine. For that, we owe Jackie Baillie and her staff our support for the bill, along with our thanks for it and for all the hard work that was involved. As David McLetchie correctly said, the bill will help to make Scotland a more inclusive country, which is surely one of Parliament's aims.
It is a pity that Jackie Baillie cannot be with us today, when all her hard work and that of her team will, we hope, come to fruition. I send my best wishes to Jackie and her family.
My part in the passage of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill has been both formal and personal. I will return to the personal aspect a little later. My formal role was as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which was the lead committee for the bill—we have already heard from other members of the committee today—and as a speaker in the stage 1 debate. We hope that the bill will be passed into law following today's stage 3 debate.
Both in the Local Government and Communities Committee—which is known for robust exchanges at times—and in the debates in the chamber, we saw Parliament at its best, in our coming together across party divisions and providing effective and positive scrutiny. That is something that the new Parliament was established to do when it was reconvened in 1999, and I believe that today's passage of the bill into law is a part of achieving that. Looking back at the Official Report of stage 1, I am struck again by the amount of consensus on the issue.
At stage 1, I discussed the proposed fines for abusing bays and spoke of the light-touch rather than soft-touch enforcement by Asda stores and, hence, the 93 per cent approval rating from its customers. I whole-heartedly agree with Patricia Ferguson's comments on the Asda store in Maryhill. I, too, have visited that store—a remarkable job has been done there.
At stage 1, I also spoke of the need for routine enforcement in high streets throughout Scotland to ensure that there is equal access for people with special mobility needs. The aim of the enforcement measures in the bill is not just to levy fines but to achieve equality. Fines are needed as a tool, but let us not forget that the principle is not about charging motorists but about changing attitudes to achieve equality. The charge is merely a tool to be used to that end.
I said that I wanted to touch on a personal aspect in relation to the bill. My father is a blue badge holder and in the past couple of years his mobility has gone from bad to worse, quite frankly. Although he used to get out quite often using the blue badge, he now gets out maybe once or twice a month. His experience is that, if he cannot find a space when he goes to a store to go about his personal business, he has to park further away. He can use his walking stick to get into the store and spend five or 10 minutes there before returning to his car and his house, but people do not see the invisible side of such mobility issues. When someone sees a blue badge holder going about their business, they might question whether that person needs a blue badge, but they do not see the person in pain the next day, and perhaps in bed, because they have pushed themselves to do more than they are physically capable of doing. If the bill is passed today, my father and others like him will benefit.
Let us hope that the bill will change attitudes and banish ignorance. I consistently hear about cases—we have heard examples today—in which someone has used a disabled persons parking bay when they have just popped into the shop for a pint of milk or a newspaper, or are visiting a neighbour for a short while. At the same time, it could be my father or someone like him who is popping in for a pint of milk, to pay a bill, or to visit a relative. Blue badge holders do not want to be prisoners in their houses, but having a Motability car and the blue badge scheme could make them prisoners in their cars if they cannot get out. We must take that on board. I hope that, as well as the publicity campaign to ensure that people are aware of the new law, there will be a public information campaign to tackle ignorance of the mobility needs of blue badge holders and the unseen side of their disability.
Other members have spoken about the costs. I will not go into that in great detail as I mentioned it at stage 1, but I hope that the absurdity of some local authorities' costings will focus their minds and encourage them to give us some real figures. There are serious concerns that some local authorities have inflated the costs to avoid a statutory obligation to enforce bays. If that is the case, they should be ashamed of themselves. The Equality and Human Rights Commission said:
"there should be no additional administrative burdens on local authorities as a result of the Bill, because this should be part of their ongoing work under the Disability Equality Duty."
It is clear that that has not always been understood. It is time for local authorities to step up to the plate.
I finish by quoting the comments that I made at the beginning of my speech in the stage 1 debate, because they sum up how I feel about the bill.
"For me, the bill is about ensuring that everyone in Scottish society is treated with the same respect and dignity, no matter who they are. If a person found it more difficult to access or leave their home, to use local facilities, to visit local shops or to go and see their friends simply because of the colour of their skin, their sex or their religion, the Parliament would rightly be outraged. We should not stand for it."—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; c 12764.]
If the bill is passed today, we will ensure that people with special mobility needs are treated in the same way as others.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, having spoken in support of its general principles at stage 1. I congratulate Jackie Baillie on her diligence in developing the bill. Today should have been her day. It has turned out to be quite a different day for her, and our thoughts are with her.
Credit is also due to the parliamentary committees that scrutinised the bill, and to the Scottish Government for endorsing its general principles and—I hope and expect—agreeing to resource a public information campaign in the run-up to its implementation. The Scottish Government is right to recognise that the issue is not party political and that the improved quality of life that the bill will bring to families who cope with disabilities is strongly supported throughout the Parliament.
In the stage 1 debate, I said that, whatever the number of complaints local authorities receive about the abuse of existing advisory disabled parking bays, in my experience, such antisocial behaviour—to give it its proper name—can drive affected families to distraction. In that debate, I gave an example that bears repetition today of a constituent of mine with two disabled children whose neighbours park in her bay. It is time that the law of Scotland put an end to such rotten behaviour.
Within 18 months to two years of the bill's enactment, it is possible that such abuse will be extremely rare and will not go unpunished. Much of the focus in the debate has been on on-street parking in a residential context, but the bill's coverage of off-street parking has been welcomed as well, and not just by MSPs and disabled drivers but, rather gratifyingly, by private sector car park operators. Graeme Taylor of National Car Parks said:
"As an off-street car park operator, we support the bill 100 per cent because it would work in the environment in which we operate."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 1 October 2008; c 1192.]
Some local government officials have expressed concerns that the costs of implementing the bill might have been underestimated. I think that they are doing their job when they express such concerns, but they should see their job through to completion by coming up with some accurate estimates.
That is a tricky area because, although it is possible to benchmark the operational costs of physically signing and lining the new generation of enforceable parking bays, it is more difficult to estimate the emerging administrative costs of dealing with the objections that will be lodged to the traffic regulation orders that councils will use to create the new bays and make existing bays enforceable. Jackie Baillie's latest gross cost estimate is around £3 million. In the stage 1 debate, I suggested that the outturn cost in the first full year of operation, when there will be set-up costs and capital costs, might be as high as £5 million, but I still regard that as money well spent. A pound per head from every Scot to improve the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of disabled Scots—that is what I call best value.
I hope that members will forgive me if, like Bob Doris, I share with the chamber a family anecdote. My mother—who, sadly, died last year—was a keen driver for all her adult life. She was taught to drive by an early boyfriend—so long ago that the driving test had not yet been introduced. Her father drove her to the licensing authority when she reached the age of 17, and she drove the car back on the journey home. Fortunately, there were not many other road users in those days.
As my mother grew older and more physically disabled, the car became a more important part of her life. It kept her mobile, and she was able to fulfil the role of named driver for a group of her contemporaries in their 80s who met regularly for lunch in various local pubs. The car enabled her to go to bridge sessions, to shop and, occasionally, to travel further afield, such as when she made the journey from her home on Tyneside to visit me in Edinburgh.
It gradually became obvious to family members that mother's personal mobility was failing fast and we suggested that she apply for a blue badge. Like many folk of her generation, she was at first reluctant to accept that she required any form of help at all. However, a combination of pressure from her family and her general practitioner, as well as the pressure of circumstances, prevailed and she was accepted into the scheme. That was a godsend because it extended her liberty and sense of independence for several more years.
However, as mother's physical mobility deteriorated still further, another problem arose. By now she needed to park very near indeed to any intended destination, but it was often impossible to find an unoccupied disabled parking place, and many of the spaces that were already occupied contained cars that were driven by folk with no disability whatsoever. On one occasion, as she was parking at the supermarket, a car drew up in the next door space—the only one vacant—and her young next-door neighbour jumped out. "But you aren't disabled," said my mother. "Oh, don't be old fashioned, Marjory," the neighbour said, "It's everyone for themselves these days," and, with that, she strutted into the shop.
My mother's experiences illustrated graphically for me two important issues. The first is the extreme value of enabling someone who is disabled in any way to continue to live life as normally as possible. Had my mum not been able to get out and about as she did, I am sure that she would have become less fit, depressed and a burden on society, rather than being able to contribute to society as she did, and she would not have been able to support her peers. The possession of a blue badge contributed to that enablement.
The second issue is the way in which disabled parking places are regarded by some members of the fit community. I have been tempted myself, when car parking spaces have been in short supply, by that welcoming space by the door of the shop or theatre, and we know that many people do not resist that temptation.
Research that was commissioned by the previous Administration showed that many abusers are in denial about the fact that they are doing something wrong. They invent justifications, such as shortage of time or the fact that they have young children, or they have a temporary physical impairment. Persistent offenders or those who fraudulently use someone else's blue badge need to feel the full weight of the law, but the others I have just mentioned are likely to be deterred if they are brought face to face with reality by the presence of legislation, which will cause them to think twice before breaking the law. That is why I strongly support the bill. Disabled drivers need that protection.
I am aware that many potential supporters have some justifiable reservations. It is true that there is a cost implication, that the law will not apply to private parking areas, and that many local authorities do not even know how many disabled parking bays they have. However, those are obstacles that can and must be overcome. In the greater scheme of things, the cost is not likely to be huge, reluctant private companies can be cajoled or shamed, and a proper audit of disabled parking places is long overdue. The welfare of disabled people is easily worth that effort.
I cannot finish without congratulating Jackie Baillie on her tenacity in progressing the bill. I have a tongue-in-cheek nickname for her, and I am sorry that I am not able to tell her what it is to her face today—with her sense of humour, I am sure that she would have enjoyed hearing it. I call her the smiling assassin because of the charming way in which she smiles sweetly at her opponents, including me, as she skilfully plunges in the political stiletto. She is a most skilful operator—not that Karen Gillon is a novice in that respect. What a pleasure it is to be on the same side as Jackie Baillie for once, and how sad it is that family circumstances prevent her from being present at this most important point in the progress of her bill. I join others in the chamber in wishing her well.
I became convinced of the need for action on disabled persons parking places after a conversation with a constituent of mine, a young woman who is a full-time carer for her elderly mother. She described to me in graphic terms the amount of time, energy, physical effort and planning that was involved in taking her mother on her weekly outing to the local supermarket, and she told me of the anger and frustration that she felt when she was denied a parking space there by an inconsiderate able-bodied person. For someone with an impairment, that is not simply an inconvenience. Only a carer can truly know how difficult and undignified it is to manoeuvre someone into a wheelchair in a standard car-parking space. Even the most mundane but important task, such as going to the shops, the post office, the GP or the hospital, can be a real challenge.
Evidence that was presented to the Local Government and Communities Committee confirmed the scale of the problem. One in five disabled parking bays is used by drivers without a blue badge. More than a third of our car parks have no accessible bays free for disabled people because of the level of abuse. Some 85 per cent of disabled spaces are not enforceable in law. A survey in Dumfries and Galloway found that 50 per cent of bays in hospital car parks were taken by drivers who did not have a disabled badge.
Amidst the gloom, there are notable exceptions, as we have heard. Asda, which gave good evidence to the committee, is leading the way with an enforcement scheme that has increased the availability of disabled parking spaces at its stores by 60 per cent. That evidence gave us an insight into what the bill can achieve. Sadly, others stores have not followed Asda's example. It pains me to say it, but a scant inspection this week of supermarket car parks in my constituency that are not part of the Asda chain—whose inspection officer is in the public gallery today—found many disabled car parking spaces that were occupied by people who were not displaying a blue badge, apparently fearless of challenge. We accept that there will be an implementation stage, as the minister said, but I suggest that, once the bill is passed, stores that do not already reach the Asda mark should not hang around much longer. They should listen to the message and act to achieve what Asda has already achieved.
For too long, disabled people have had to rely on other drivers not to take reserved parking spaces out of courtesy and consideration. The committee heard evidence that, sadly, when disabled people complain to drivers who abuse disabled spaces, the complainers can receive abuse and even threats of violence. Therefore, as has been said today and in evidence to the committee:
"the age of relying on politeness has ended and the age of enforcement has come."
That is welcome and long overdue.
Although the bill will in due course change the quality of life of many Scots, it is worth mentioning that the benefits may be wider than the mobility benefits for disabled people. Evidence to the committee confirmed that people who break rules in one part of their lives are likely to break rules in other illegal ways. Research shows that those who are careless and thoughtless enough to take up disabled parking bays are more likely to have a criminal record, and that 50 per cent of them have a history of traffic violations. One in 10 cars that are found abusing disabled parking spaces is in an illegal condition. The top criminologist Sylvia Chenery of University College London's Jill Dando institute of crime science supports the bill and says that a crackdown on the abuse of disabled parking spaces could nail some of our most wanted criminals. She has reminded us that the Yorkshire ripper was caught because he had a dodgy licence plate. Perhaps the minister can discuss that issue with his colleagues. Enforcement of disabled parking spaces might be an efficient way in which to target active criminals and offenders, as well as illegal vehicles.
Today is a day to celebrate all the efforts of disability campaigners over many years, including those involved in the eye-catching campaigns such as the space invaders and baywatch campaigns. A lot of work has gone on for a long time. My committee colleagues will take pleasure in the passage of the bill. Those campaigners have had their concerns listened to and, more important, acted on. There is no doubt that the change will improve the lives of many Scots. The campaigners are also to be congratulated on recognising that, in Jackie Baillie, they found a politician who shared their concerns and their determination to change things for the better. As has been acknowledged today, she is a politician with all the necessary skills to ensure the safe passage of the bill without amendment, with the support of the Government and, I hope, with the unanimous support of the Parliament. That is a commendation of her work and effort. We are all sad that she is not here to share today's events.
As members have said, in this stage 3 debate, it is important to acknowledge Jackie Baillie's contribution in championing the key principles of her member's bill. Members have already stated—but it is worth reinforcing—that Jackie Baillie and her staff deserve credit for their work on the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. My role in the proposed legislation has been to examine the proposals as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, particularly through the evidence-gathering sessions. I have taken an active interest in the bill.
I will touch on the committee's findings in its report on the proposed legislation. It is important that we examine carefully the context and background of the bill and the reasons for its introduction. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the issue knows about the on-going problems with the blue badge scheme and the abuse of disabled parking bays by non-blue badge holders. In essence, the scheme is about assisting disabled people to travel and live their lives independently. It is worth reinforcing the point that I made in the stage 1 debate that it is more than a pity that no in-depth research on the issue has been commissioned by any governmental agency. For far too long, not enough has been done to tackle what amounts to no less than a flagrant abuse of disabled people's rights.
Members have referred to the baywatch campaign, which found that at least one in five disabled parking spaces is abused by non-blue badge drivers. Supermarkets and private car park operators have not been opposed to the bill at any stage of its progress through the Parliament. In fact, as members have said, Asda has led the way by introducing a fine system for those who abuse disabled persons bays. Mr Guy Mason from Asda highlighted the fact that four out of five customers support the system of fines. However, as the Local Government and Communities Committee detailed clearly in its report, there is an on-going debate about advisory versus enforceable disabled persons parking bays, which in turn has followed through into a debate on the costs associated with the proposed legislation. The committee recognises the difficulty that local authorities throughout Scotland face in conducting an audit of existing advisory disabled persons parking bays, but it agrees that a period of a year after the act comes into force is a reasonable timeframe for completion of the exercise.
The evidence-gathering sessions were a more-than-useful exercise in fleshing out important points about the proposed legislation that need to be addressed. Today and in the stage 1 debate, we have had much discussion of the associated costs, particularly in relation to the figures that the Parliament's Finance Committee identified. I reinforce the assertion that I made in the stage 1 debate that we need more clarification of the matter from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities. As I have argued previously, local authority budgets should be prioritised better to take account of established best practice in relation to existing disability discrimination legislation. Bearing in mind that there are 32 local authorities in Scotland, it was not an especially helpful response rate for only 21 of them to respond to the member's consultation.
I declare an interest as a blue badge holder.
What comparison has been made with other European countries as regards compliance with the blue badge legislation? From personal experience, I believe that our compliance is probably greater than that in other countries, such as Portugal, where Jackie Baillie is just now.
I cannot possibly answer Margo MacDonald's question, but I am sure that she can take it up with others.
Although authorities responded on the issue of the costs associated with implementing the bill, there was significant variation in those costs. The Local Government and Communities Committee states clearly in its stage 1 report that the overall estimate of £1.7 million to implement the bill is
"subject to a significant degree of doubt".
The argument made by one local authority seemed to be more about the potential for more funding—in anticipation of a one-off cost—rather than service delivery for disabled people in the community.
As witnesses stated in the evidence-gathering sessions, which have had an impact on the wider debate inside and outside the Parliament, there is significant crossover between the committee's report and the research that has been conducted by other organisations in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the disability equality duty on local authorities.
In its submission, Leonard Cheshire Disability noted that, in undertaking their functions, public bodies in Scotland should have due regard to promoting equality of opportunity for disabled persons and other persons. Under the existing legislation, there is a duty on public bodies to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life.
The bill underpins the concept of independent living in a practical sense, not just in the abstract. In getting to the heart of the matter, one has only to examine the Equality and Human Rights Commission's submission, which states that the bill will remove
"a persistent barrier to disabled people's participation in society."
I welcome the bill and support its general principles. When it is enacted, it will make a meaningful contribution to tackling social exclusion for disabled individuals who rely on the blue badge scheme to be active citizens.
The member should really conclude now.
Sorry, Presiding Officer. I want to comment finally on the consensual manner in which members of all parties have dealt with the bill, despite some reservations. That highlights the work that we can do together to benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in Scotland.
I am delighted to take part in the debate. On behalf of the many disabled people who will benefit from the bill, I thank Jackie Baillie for introducing it. I share others' sadness that she is not here today to see the bill being passed, given the hard work that she has put in. I am not sure that she would agree with Dr McKee's representation of her. I am confident that Karen Gillon, who is a fellow Lanarkshire politician, would not agree with the suggestion that a stiletto would be among the armoury that we would use on our political opponents—that is an insult! [Laughter.]
As the convener of the cross-party group on disability and the father of a disabled daughter, I know only too well the problems that disabled people experience when they try to find a suitable parking space. Not only do they often have a battle to get a car that suits them in the first place, but they then have to battle to park it—something that so many of us take for granted.
I have yet to meet a person who will admit to using a disabled parking bay to which they are not entitled, but the problem is widespread. As Duncan McNeil and John Wilson said, the baywatch campaign found that one in five disabled parking bays in Britain are used by drivers who do not have a blue badge.
I believe that people who misuse disabled parking bays know that they are doing something wrong but do not want others to think badly of them, which is why they are reluctant to confess to their inconsiderate behaviour. Passing the bill is the right thing to do for its own sake, but if the bill also makes people take note of the impact that their selfishness has on others, and on disabled people in particular, it will be a success in more ways than one.
We have all seen the selfish driver parking in a disabled spot outside the supermarket and jumping out of their car without putting a blue badge in the window. We all know that the space should be used for the benefit of the disabled, who are rightly entitled to park there. As others have said, it is regrettable that we have to legislate to enforce the necessary consideration that everyone else takes for granted.
There are more than 1 million disabled people in Scotland, of whom more than 225,000 are blue badge holders and 96,000 are wheelchair users. Nearly a quarter of the total population of Scotland are disabled and yet they have to fight their way into a parking space when carrying out a daily chore, such as visiting the supermarket.
We know that the blue badge scheme can be abused. However, people who use a blue badge might not be the stereotypical disabled person that we would recognise. I am sure that we have all made a comment or two about the selfish driver who parks in a disabled parking bay, but I urge everyone not to be too quick to judge. We must always be careful to look at the disabled person. I concur with the personal perspective that Bob Doris outlined. I have lost count of the number of disabled people who have told me that they are often glared at if they park in a disabled bay because they can walk unaided.
Equally, the available figures tell us that not all disabled people use the blue badge scheme, but they do not tell us the reasons for that. Some disabled people say that they have not applied for the badge because they do not want to use it to take the space of someone more deserving. My daughter, who drives a Motability adapted car, does not have a blue badge, because she believes that the space that she could use should go to someone more in need. That does not make her any less disabled; it indicates her independent judgment on the issue.
For some disabled people, their car is their lifeline; it is not something that they use as a status symbol, as so many people do. Too often, public transport is not an effective option for disabled people. Leonard Cheshire Disability found that 70 per cent of disabled people state that they cannot rely on public transport. For them, the car is the only way that they can access what we take for granted. The Parliament must continue to address that issue, but, for now, we should support the only bill that promotes the rights of disabled drivers in Scotland. I commend Jackie Baillie, and all the disabled groups that have fought so hard, for making the bill possible.
My thoughts are with Jackie Baillie and her family at this very sad time. I pay tribute to Jackie Baillie for her tenacity in pursuing the issue of parking bays for disabled people vigorously and I thank the many people from throughout Scotland who came to the Parliament to lobby for action. The passing of the bill today will be a victory for all the people in Scotland who have actively pursued the issue.
Disabled parking has always been close to my heart, having had an aunt who was disabled for many years and an elderly mother who could not get about in her later years. I would have liked the bill to look at the blue badge scheme as a whole and at extending it to deliver a range of other concessions, for example in relation to off-street parking. However, I realise that the scheme is a reserved issue. Perhaps we can look at it again at some other time, if we get the powers to do so. If the scheme was extended to cover off-street parking, it would be much more enforceable. Perhaps the minister will address that point in his summing up.
Parking for disabled people has been the subject of a parliamentary debate and numerous petitions to the Public Petitions Committee, of which I was a member when they were lodged. I remember when the committee met in Dunfermline in the middle of winter. People from disability action groups came all the way from Glasgow and Greenock in their cars to speak to their petition—that is how strongly they felt about the issue.
The subject was also discussed in the previous Equal Opportunities Committee. I see Cathy Peattie here, who was the convener of the committee when the subject was covered in our report "Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities", which stated:
"The Committee also recommends that the Scottish Executive develop and promote suitable mechanisms for the effective enforcement of proper use of accessible parking for disabled people wherever it exists including encouraging local authorities to make full use of Traffic Regulation Orders."
The bill will confirm that statement. I am pleased to support the bill in its entirety.
Like other members, Karen Gillon mentioned the variation in costs, which go from the extremes of the sublime to the ridiculous. Glasgow's costs seem to be rocketing all the time. We must examine that and ask local authorities what their costs are. The costs that COSLA and local authorities have provided vary so much that it is not possible to say whether they are correct.
As Charlie Gordon said, financial costs should not take precedence over the human costs to people with disabilities. We cannot consider simply finance; we must look at the issue in the round and consider the human rights of disabled people. Financial costs are secondary to enabling people to live active lives.
What are the costs of being unable to park? Let us consider what we can do. Blue badge holders or members of other disability schemes who cannot park cannot, unlike us, get about and perform daily tasks such as going to the doctor, going shopping or attending appointments. They cannot get about socially to go to the theatre or the cinema, and they cannot participate in all the activities that we take for granted, because of the actions of selfish people. As David McLetchie said, if people will not behave considerately, we must, unfortunately, have enforceable legislation. It is unfortunate that, in this day and age, people do not treat others with humility and in the same manner in which they expect others to treat them.
I welcome the bill, which will be passed with the Parliament's full support. It will go some way towards ensuring that we strive to achieve a fully inclusive Scotland.
As the husband of a disabled person, I am pleased to participate in the debate. I am sure that Jackie Baillie and her family are in all our thoughts.
Karen Gillon said that
"the age of relying on politeness"
was over, which is a theme of the debate. I thank her for her full explanation and for her contribution to the debate. Other members have commented on the style of the debate: Bob Doris's speech caught the tone of it. Ten years on, if anyone asks us what the point of the Scottish Parliament is, we have the answer in today's debate, which reaches out to people who are in need.
The minister, Stewart Stevenson, and David McLetchie referred to costs, on which we have gone back and forth. However, the point is that the bill is a step in what we are united in saying is the right direction.
I compliment Patricia Ferguson on a very good speech. Like my colleague Jim Tolson, she referred to the Asda experience. As other members have said, the fact that Asda is making contributions to charity shows us what can be done. The onus is on other supermarkets, to which I shall refer in a minute or two, to follow that example.
Members have not touched on parking at hospitals. I have had lengthy discussions with people at Caithness general hospital in Wick, which is in my constituency, about parking, which is a big problem for the hospital. The parking spaces for disabled people are clearly marked and signposted, yet many other visitors use them, despite being urged not to. Hospital staff receive many complaints about that. An example of the impact is that the hospital has a disabled member of staff who often cannot find a space and must park her car on the lawn beside the hospital.
The hospital is making an effort to deal with the situation. For instance, it tried putting stickers on the windows of cars that were not entitled to be parked in disabled spaces, but people complained that the stickers would not come off the cars, so the hospital stopped that practice. Wee tickets that say, "These spaces are for disabled people. Please park at the back of the building," are now put under windscreen wipers. Staff have been told to keep an eye on the situation, but there is only so much that they can do. Is it right that their time should be diverted to such operations when they should be focusing on their main role—the delivery of health services to my constituents? Staff have told me that the bill will alleviate many struggles for them and for disabled people at the hospital, which is welcome.
I will give my experience from my area of Tain. I am the husband of a disabled person. Like Duncan McNeil and Michael McMahon, I have known the irritation of finding that all the disabled spaces are taken. What do we do? We have to park somewhere that is further away. Okay, that is fair enough, but if it is snowing or sleeting it is not funny for the disabled person. We choose our space carefully, because it must be wide enough—the width of spaces has been mentioned. We have all experienced coming back to our car with our messages to find that somebody has parked about a foot away from the passenger side of our car, which is no good, so the car must be reversed out before the passenger can enter. That is all extremely undignified for the person concerned.
Members all know what an angry Jamie Stone looks like. I have seen myself stalking up and down the disabled bays at Raigmore hospital noting that some of the cars displayed no blue badge. That is the case almost every time I am at Caithness general hospital and Raigmore hospital.
I will name check a man who will welcome the bill—Mr Herbie Giles. He is in charge of the car park at Tain Co-op. He told me this week that he will be absolutely delighted when the bill is passed. It is not his job to police the situation and, as we have heard, people can be quite unpleasant in the circumstances.
Stewart Stevenson, the minister, said that change is coming, but not overnight. The point is that change is coming, which is welcome to people such as me and my constituents. I think—in fact, I have no doubt and am perfectly certain—that the bill will be warmly welcomed the length and breadth of my constituency. As an MSP, an individual and a citizen of this country, I will do everything in my power to make the legislation work.
This is a great day for Jackie Baillie and it is an enormous shame that she cannot be with us. She can hold her head up high, because she has done something that will be hugely important to some of the most disadvantaged people in our society, whom we have a responsibility to look after. I warmly support the bill, as does my party.
The debate marks the culmination for Jackie Baillie of a hard-fought campaign, on which I congratulate her. I send her my best wishes. I congratulate Karen Gillon, too, on standing in Jackie Baillie's shoes adeptly in her opening speech.
I support the bill, but I will draw the Parliament's attention to a concern of mine that arose during my career with the Scottish retail motor industry. The issue is not so much the securing of dedicated parking places as the eligibility to use those places.
People who are entitled to use disabled persons parking spaces are registered blue badge drivers, the vast majority of whom benefit from the United Kingdom Motability car purchase scheme. The scheme's history is worth recalling. Most members of a certain age will remember—perhaps with some affection—the old rather lurid turquoise three-wheeled Reliant Robin motor vehicle that was made available to severely disabled people to give them essential mobility by car. As a teenager, I probably smirked at those cars as I drove about but, as an employer in my 20s, I most certainly did not smirk, because I had an employee for whom the car was a lifeline. [Interruption.] That might be my phone. The car gave him an opportunity to participate in the world of work and to engage. I recognised what an important aspect of his life that car became.
However, to be frank, the Robin outlived its usefulness, although its users treasured it to the end. It was determined during the tenure of a Conservative Government that, rather than create a replacement vehicle, a scheme should apply general discounts to and waive VAT on whatever motor vehicles manufacturers wished to make available through the scheme. Initially—and on the basis that those who were awarded and persevered with the Reliant Robin had shown a determined need—demand for the product remained stable. In the early days, most of the cars that we supplied under the scheme were entry-level models—the Ford Escort Popular was the most in demand.
It is crucial to note that a significant number of the vehicles that initially were supplied were adapted to reflect the driver's physical disability. However, something happened after then. Demand exploded as those who were eligible for the benefit but who had not fancied a Reliant Robin—many had been able to purchase an alternative—discovered that the benefit applied to any make or model of vehicle, subject to the manufacturer making it available under the scheme. At one point in the 1990s, before substantial European Union enlargement, and as a direct result of the substantial taxpayer-funded subsidy, the scheme had grown to the point that more people were registered on the UK Motability disabled driver scheme than were registered as disabled drivers in all the other EU countries put together. Perhaps that addresses in part the point that Margo MacDonald made.
Moreover, less than 2 per cent of the vehicles supplied were adapted in any way whatever. I am not suggesting that only people with a physical disability should be eligible for the Motability scheme, but it is right to ask why the figure for adaptations has gone from a substantial number to less than 2 per cent. When I left the industry, 10 per cent of the UK market—200,000 vehicles—was being supplied annually under the scheme, subsidised by the taxpayer. I regret to say that, in some instances, I was aware of deliberate abuse and the frankly ridiculous—the customer who was eligible for the benefit because he was diagnosed as clinically bald, or the man who freely admitted to my salesman—
Order. The member should get back to the bill or relate his remarks to it.
A man freely admitted to my salesman that he drove from Glasgow to Ayr on a cold day with his leg stuck out of the window before a doctor's appointment confirmed poor circulation, entitling him to the benefit.
I am concerned about the number of people who are using disabled spaces and the public subsidy that underpins the scheme, in relation to the essential need of the people who must use such spaces and may be denied the opportunity to do so. It is a serious matter, because taxpayers are now subsidising not just entry models but Mercedes, Audis and even more luxurious models. I contrast that situation with the injustice that is meted out to those who need an appropriate wheelchair—an issue that has concerned me since I was elected to the Parliament. By definition, every wheelchair user has a physical disability, so access to an appropriate chair is an even more essential lifeline. Although it is true that some also have access to a motor vehicle, only 2 per cent of cars are adapted. The amount of public money that is spent on wheelchair users is relatively pathetic. I am not making a party-political point, but I point to the contrast between spending on the essential transport and mobility needs of wheelchair users and the huge public subsidy that we provide for motor vehicles.
I do not wish to take away the incredible liberation and lifeline that are offered to people who rightly enjoy vehicles under the Motability scheme, or to detract from the screaming frustration that they can feel when they try to park and find that spaces have selfishly been blocked by others who are too lazy to park elsewhere. Des McNulty detailed the many and varied examples of that problem and the other difficulties that disabled drivers face. However, there are others who find on-street parking difficult but are not entitled to use reserved spaces. Ian McKee touched on the situation of elderly drivers whose joints are not as flexible as they once were and who appreciate the opportunity to park in end bays, as they find it difficult to negotiate the dimensions of mid-row parking bays. Some get blue badges, but others do not actively think of doing so and give up driving, because they think that it will be too difficult. Ian McKee reflected the sentiments of many of those people. Michael McMahon reflected the sentiments of many people who feel that, even though they have a disability, spaces should be reserved for other people to use.
David McLetchie dealt in detail with the substantive concerns that we and others have expressed about the continued uncertainty about the funding that will be necessary to implement the bill. In his conclusion that we are placing a further cost obligation on our councils, the funding of which remains uncertain and has wider margins than we would wish, he spoke a candid truth. Although that is regrettable, we will not allow it to prevent us from lending our support to the bill at decision time. This is an important bill that will make the lives of many people better. However, we all want to ensure that it will be available to those people who most desperately need to use it.
After such a positive and consensual debate, it is difficult to know what one can add. I start by putting on record how pleased I am to have contributed to this small but perfectly formed bill. I join other MSPs in congratulating the bill's sponsor, Jackie Baillie. I am sorry that she cannot be with us today, but she has already demonstrated ably why we are here. She saw a problem, recognised that some of the most vulnerable people were being disadvantaged and set about changing that situation. Those of us who know Jackie Baillie know not to stand in her way, whether she is smiling or otherwise. On this occasion, we are all willing accomplices, but the fact that today we will have a piece of legislation that will do what many of us want to do—make life better for people—is down to her. Given all the warm words and compliments that have been offered—some from unusual places—it is probably just as well that she is not with us today.
As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I join others in thanking those who gave written and oral evidence on the bill. Although I joined the committee after it had started taking evidence, it was easy to identify the crucial issues. Like Des McNulty, I thank the disability groups and individuals who progressed the legislation.
Probably the most contentious aspect of the bill was the financial memorandum. Members such as David McLetchie, Jim Tolson and, in particular, Karen Gillon, in her opening speech, have mentioned it again today. The main difficulty that the proposer faced in producing a cost for the bill was that local authorities—which we might have thought were best placed to say how much it would cost them—made a variety of statements on cost. Some of the variation could be explained by the different ways in which local authorities processed applications, but that did not provide the whole answer. The unanswered part of the question caused concern in both the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Finance Committee.
Members can have more confidence in the reassessment that Karen Gillon has provided today, which puts the cost of the bill at around £3 million. It will be for the Scottish Government and COSLA to oversee costs. I am glad that the minister has indicated that meetings are taking place to resolve the issue, but more work needs to be done if local authorities are not to be left with what David McLetchie termed an "unfunded mandate". However, I agree with my colleague Charlie Gordon that the money will be well spent.
It is clear that responsibility for delivering the legislation will fall most heavily on local authorities. Given that they already have a disability equality duty, the added responsibility should not be too onerous. However, the intention to allow local authorities 12 months from the date of enactment of the legislation in which to conduct an audit of current spaces and to obtain orders to make enforceable those that are deemed necessary is reasonable. I sincerely hope that local authorities will avail themselves of best practice when carrying out their responsibilities. That will clearly make a difference not just to the cost but to the efficiency of establishing enforceable spaces.
In terms of overall cost and cost benefit, would it be sensible for the Government to undertake an information and education campaign before the legislation comes into force? If people understand the legislation from all different points of view, the amount of work that local authorities will have to do when implementing it may be reduced.
Margo MacDonald makes an interesting point. I was about to say that local authorities and the Scottish Government need to recognise that publicity and education will be required if the legislation is to work. That point was strongly and ably put by my colleague Patricia Ferguson. Although I am sure that it will be taken forward in joint meetings, the minister may want to respond to Patricia Ferguson's invitation to say a little more about his intentions in that regard.
This has been a consensual debate. When that happens, it is sometimes easy to miss how important an issue is. The bill really has the potential to improve the quality of life of the almost 230,000 blue badge holders. They should not have to think twice about going out, either because they cannot find a vacant space at their destination or because they cannot find a space close to home when they return. The bill covers public space but places a duty on local authorities to make contact with private car park owners. I urge those businesses that operate car parks to follow many of the examples about which we have heard today, especially in relation to Asda, and to make their spaces enforceable. That is the right thing to do. As other members have said, I am sure that it will also benefit them commercially.
Today is one of those days in the Parliament when we can all feel good about what we have done.
I thank Jackie Baillie for introducing the bill and I thank her alter ego—or doppelgänger, as Dr McKee might say—Karen Gillon, for so ably filling the breach. I also thank Mary Mulligan for the support that she provided. Jackie Baillie and members of all parties are aware that the Scottish Government is committed to the principles behind the bill.
I take the opportunity to thank all the members who contributed to the debate, which has been interesting and indicative of the Parliament's engagement on supporting people with disabilities. I think that every member who spoke made a useful contribution, but I single out Patricia Ferguson, who made a particularly thoughtful and informative speech.
Thanks are also due to the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, COSLA and the non-Executive bills unit for their work in trying to obtain robust implementation costs. The task is not yet complete, but there has been honest endeavour, and at official and ministerial level we will continue to work in partnership with COSLA and local authorities to ensure that best value is achieved in the one-off national implementation exercise. Estimates of the likely cost appear to be coalescing around £3 million. That figure does not unduly alarm me.
A tangible result of the process will be the annual reports that local authorities and the Government produce. The reports will provide openness and transparency on the processes that surround the provision and enforcement of disabled parking bays and will let the public know whether local authorities are carrying out their duties in relation to the bill. I thank the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland for its advice on the bill. I am sure that it is one of many organisations that will scrutinise the annual reports.
Patricia Ferguson said that the debate is not about disability, which was spot on. The reality is that the debate is about changing the attitudes and behaviour of the able bodied, because only when that happens will we deliver for the disabled. That should perhaps be our primary focus. At stage 2, Patricia Ferguson asked about an information campaign and I confirmed that we will mount such a campaign. We will liaise with local authorities and other stakeholders in early course, to ensure that people have the good information that is necessary if the bill is to be a success.
Patricia Ferguson also said that the Parliament has been rather "legislation light" during the past two years. The Government is always happy to work with other parties in the Parliament to build consensus for legislation. The bill, which was introduced from the Labour benches, provides a good model for the work that can be done to build consensus before debates take place in the Parliament. It is clear from today's debate that the consensus that has been built will endure beyond decision time tonight.
Many members drew on familial experience. Bob Doris described his father's experiences. Of course, a charge or fine—whatever we call it—will be a mark of the system's failure; a mark of its success will be the change of behaviour that we all seek.
Charlie Gordon talked about disabled drivers. We should remember that not just drivers but passengers might be disabled. There are many blue badge holders who have not learned to drive or are unable to do so. We are talking about a wider community.
Ian McKee said that his mother drove without having passed the driving test. I am familiar with that situation, because my father drove on the roads without having taken the test. On many occasions I rather wished that he had had to go through the rigour of a test. Indeed, when, in his later years, he worked as a driver for the Women's Royal Voluntary Services, his passengers occasionally wished that, too.
My mother, Helen Mary Berry MacGregor, walked on sticks almost all her adult life—she could walk only from her knees—but when she was in a car she was a different animal altogether. She had the 47th Mini Cooper S to be built in 1962. That was before Barbara Castle introduced the national speed limit, and I recall being with my mother as she drove along the Baiglie straight towards Bridge of Earn at 100mph, although when she reached the supermarket car park her speed was down to about half a mile per hour. For disabled people, the mobility that cars deliver is a significant part of their lives.
Duncan McNeil said that stores need not wait to follow Asda's example. I am not entirely sure whether it was Abraham Lincoln who said, "The early bird gets the worm; the late bird eats the dirt." People who play catch-up play a dangerous game; people who show leadership often achieve commercial success, while supporting corporate social responsibility aims.
Duncan McNeil also talked about criminality in the context of the abuse of parking spaces. A chief constable told me that in his experience a person who abuses a disabled parking space is four times as likely to have a criminal conviction as a person who does not abuse such a space. A general pattern of disobeying society's rules and laws can often be illuminated by a person's willingness to break the rules about disabled parking spaces. Police forces have told me about the success that they have had in relation to criminal justice in general when they have focused on people who abuse parking spaces. To people who think of abusing disabled parking spaces, I say, "Think on this: you will be thought to be a criminal from the outset."
Michael McMahon's speech reminded me that cars can be status symbols, and Jackson Carlaw said that Mercedes and Audis are being converted under the Motability scheme. One of my aunts—she was called Stewart, too—had one of the three-wheelers that Jackson Carlaw mentioned. On one occasion she drove it into a ditch, and because it was so light helpful passing motorists were able to lift it out and put it back on the road for her. That would not have been possible if she had been driving a Mercedes ML55, so there were significant advantages to the three-wheelers—I do not think that my aunt Stewart would have been able to afford a Mercedes anyway.
Over the years, successive Administrations have sought to support people who have difficulty with mobility. The bill takes us further forward. Sandra White suggested that we consider extending the options for blue badge holders. We are working with the UK Government on the issue and we will continue to engage actively on it. In Scotland we are responsible for some of the regulations to do with the basic structure of the blue badge system, which was introduced to follow the orange badge system—my mother had an orange badge on her Mini Cooper S more than 40 years ago.
The bill will give dignity to people who have restricted mobility. It will give opportunity to disabled people. It is an earnest mark of the Parliament's commitment to people who suffer a degree of disadvantage in our society. I will take great pleasure in pressing the "yes" button when I am invited to vote for the bill at decision time at 5 o'clock.
It falls to me to speak for 10 minutes in a consensual debate.
It is not compulsory.
It is challenging for me to speak consensually for more than two minutes, but I shall do my best.
I pay tribute to Jackie Baillie. I hope that other members will allow the Labour Party a little pride in our sister who has brought the bill to this stage. It is a regret that she is not with us today. We have long known her charms and persuasive abilities. She has shown in equal measure two qualities that were critical to taking the bill through: passion and persistence. That is why we have a bill that works and an underpinning policy and political commitment that have created supported across the Parliament.
I thank Jackie Baillie's staff, NEBU, SPICe, Stewart Stevenson and his officials. They have all contributed to ensuring that we were happily able to get to this stage. I also commend the campaigning groups that identified the problem, shared their experiences and captured the challenge that faced us as legislators in solving it. As Duncan McNeil said, the impact of constituents coming to individual MSPs' surgeries to describe their experience and demand that we take action was probably as powerful as the campaigning groups' work. That connection is a measure of the important work that the Parliament can do.
The bill is a practical measure on an issue that requires a practical approach. It addresses a specific problem. It does not do everything, but it ought not to be judged as if it should. I have long taken the view that it is correct to win hearts and minds but that, while we wait for hearts and minds to be won, we can take enforcement action. We must take that approach to equality because the bill is created and shaped by attitudes of hostility and discrimination the eradication of which will require more than a practical approach.
We should remind ourselves of the appalling context: disabled people are berated and insulted by able-bodied drivers; their carers are threatened; and they are denied access to the parking spaces they need simply because there are drivers who are so selfish or indolent that they treat disabled people as if they are swindling them to create a benefit for themselves. That is why we need action. Some drivers are so unembarrassable and display attitudes that are so blatant that we can feel overwhelmed and that it is not possible to address the problem. We cannot allow ourselves to be overwhelmed, because we are dealing with basic rights. It is necessary to confront the attitudes that are driven by such hostility and discrimination.
We should think of the bill as a mark of two things. First, it is a mark of the failure to change attitudes; it is evidence of real discrimination—it is not just theoretical and in politicians' heads—that is lived daily. Secondly, it is an acknowledgement of the need to drive further down into equality and equal opportunity and understand properly how discrimination operates. That is not an indulgence; it must be central to our work because it defines life chances. Understanding how people's life chances are shaped by their disabilities and the discrimination of the communities in which they live is not a party-political issue, but it is a deeply political issue.
Margo MacDonald made a point about the level of blue badge holding and compliance abroad. NEBU understands that the blue badge is recognised internationally and that a badge that is issued in another EU country is valid for use in Scotland and vice versa. I hope that that responds to that point.
I have a point of information on compliance with the regulations. Some European countries—I instanced Portugal because of Jackie Baillie's connection with the country—have reserved blue badge parking not only for people with disabilities, but for expectant mothers and people who walk with sticks. They grade the disabilities and, therefore, the use to which the parking might be put. That was part of Michael McMahon's point.
The debate provides an opportunity to explore those further issues. There is always opportunity to develop understanding of how people with disabilities are affected and what rights and entitlements they should have. That does not take anything away from what we are attempting to do with the bill.
We must reflect on the cost of inhibiting people with disabilities from working, participating in society and being involved in their communities. Excluding people in that way involves a huge cost not only to those individuals and their families, but to broader society. I concur with the point, which Charlie Gordon made forcibly, that even if the bill costs £1 per Scot to implement, it will be good value and the mark of a decent society.
I also concur with John Wilson's point that the bill is about the core business of local authorities in fulfilling their duties to people with disabilities. If people are not able to participate in society because the parking bay system is not working, it is part of local government's core business to address that and it represents a necessary cost, not an additional one.
Jim Tolson mentioned the gap in the figures. The fact that a gap exists calls into question the seriousness with which the figures were established. I would not define as a robust assessment figures that show such a difference between two local authorities. If there is an issue, local authorities and the minister must address it seriously together by understanding the real cost. Local authorities should not create the impression that implementing the bill is a luxury, a bonus or an imposition; it is a necessary part of the individual rights of people who live in their areas and pay council tax, as others do. I urge the minister to commit to continuing dialogue on that. The bill must not fail because we have been unable to agree an absolute cost. The cost must follow the political commitment to disabled individuals.
No battle against discrimination or inequality was ever won easily. There will always be doubters and easy opportunities to knock down individual cases, but we would never have secured any entitlements for disabled people—no rights to employment or access to mainstream education—if we had started from the point of view that it was too difficult. Winning the battle against discrimination is about taking practical measures and being optimistic about our capacity to deliver rights for people in our communities. A good example of that is blue badge abuse. I have been amazed at the extent to which normal, rational human beings would justify using disabled parking spaces, even though they were not themselves disabled, because they think that some people might be abusing the system; they discriminate against the people who are legally entitled to blue badges on the basis that somebody else is playing the system.
How come the person with a disadvantage suffers because somebody somewhere else is abusing the system? We must challenge that attitude. The matter is simple: a driver should not use a disabled space if they do not have a disability and they should demand that the authorities deal with the people who hold blue badges illegally. We will always find reasons for doing things for our own convenience. The challenge is to create legislation and an enforcement process that allow that attitude to be tackled.
I congratulate and thank all the members who have spoken in the debate and everyone who created the political context for the bill by understanding the need for particular measures. The fact that we take an individual experience from a local community, understand the general causes of it and address it politically is an expression of a key role of the Parliament. We do not often get the opportunity to feel proud of our Parliament, but the debate is rooted in an understanding that we work best when we give priority to the challenge of people's life experiences as they describe them rather than as we imagine them to be.
I commend everyone who has brought us to this point. I thank Karen Gillon for opening the debate on Jackie Baillie's behalf. It is a privilege for me to play my small part. The next test is to ensure that this little bit of legislation delivers the things that we aspire to deliver through it.