Committee
Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 12 June 2019
12 Jun 2019 · S5 · Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee
Item of business
Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
I think that the way in which the system is set out in the bill means that the likelihood of a greater level of exemptions is lower than it is in Mr Simpson’s suggested approach, which I suspect would result in a much greater level of exemptions being provided. 19:30 Mr Simpson’s amendments 115 and 116 seek to remove the national prohibition on pavement parking and instead enable local authorities to make pavement parking orders to prohibit pavement parking in areas of their choosing. Amendment 118 seeks to remove the power to make exemption orders, as they would no longer be needed in the absence of a national prohibition, and amendment 119 seeks to make provision about the form and content of, and procedure associated with, pavement parking orders. Amendment 120 seeks to make provision about the traffic signs required where a prohibition is in place under such an order, and amendments 121 and 143 seek to make provision on exceptions and penalty charges respectively. Amendments 146, 148, 150, 153, 155 and 161 seek to make a number of technical and consequential changes. Finally, Jamie Greene’s amendment 116A seeks to require a local authority to assess the effects of creating parking prohibitions before making a pavement parking order. If the amendments were to be accepted, local authorities would have discretion over whether a pavement parking prohibition would be introduced at all in their areas, instead of there being, as proposed in the bill, a countrywide prohibition. I cannot support such a fundamental change in the aim of the bill’s pavement parking provisions, as it would not provide a uniform, national solution to a difficult problem that the Parliament has been considering for some time. It could lead to a fragmented approach, with one local authority banning all pavement parking and others choosing to remain with the status quo. That would simply confuse motorists and frustrate pedestrians. Seventy-three per cent of those who responded to the Government’s “Improving Parking in Scotland” consultation supported a ban on pavement parking on all of Scotland’s roads, and the figure rose to 76 per cent when only responses from public bodies were considered. That indicates clear support for the original proposal of a countrywide ban. Although amendments 287 to 291, in the name of Mark Ruskell, raise important issues that are worthy of consideration, they are unnecessary, due to existing statutory provisions. Amendments 287 and 288, which seek to include cycle tracks in the pavement parking prohibition in section 42, are unnecessary because parking a motor vehicle on a cycle track is already a criminal offence under section 129(6) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The decriminalised parking enforcement regime under the Road Traffic Act 1991 gives the Scottish ministers the power, on an application made by a local authority in Scotland, to make an order that designates the whole or part of that local authority’s area a “special parking area”. Where such a designation order is in place, the criminal offence in relation to parking on cycle tracks ceases to apply, and a civil penalty charge is payable instead. These particular amendments would therefore cut across existing civil and criminal enforcement options with regard to parking on cycle tracks. Amendment 289 seeks to include in section 42 of the bill verges and other planting adjacent to the carriageway in the pavement parking prohibition. However, verges are more properly regarded as being part of the road itself, as the verge is included in the definition of “road” for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That act allows the Scottish ministers to make traffic regulation orders and temporary traffic regulation orders that prohibit parking on roads, which, as I have mentioned, include verges. Under sections 5 and 16 of the 1984 act, contravention of a traffic regulation order or a temporary traffic regulation order is a criminal offence. In addition, the reference to “planting adjacent to the carriageway” in amendment 289 is not defined, and its meaning is potentially ambiguous. To the extent that other planting is properly regarded as being a verge, the powers that I have already described allow for that to be prohibited under a traffic regulation order. Amendments 290 and 291 are also unnecessary, as provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 already combine to make stopping or parking on a school entrance a criminal offence. Amendment 290 seeks to include “school etc. entrance from 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday during school term” in the definition of “pavement” in section 42(4) of the bill, thereby including such entrances in the pavement parking prohibition during the periods specified. Amendment 291 defines “school etc. entrance” so that the term “is to be construed in accordance with schedule 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.” Item 10 in part 4 of schedule 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 prescribes a road marking to indicate a school entrance. That can be combined with a no-stopping sign, which may or may not prescribe time periods when it applies. The combination of the school entrance road marking being in place and section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes it an offence not to comply with traffic signs, means that failure to comply with the road marking that indicates no stopping on a school entrance is already a criminal offence.
In the same item of business
The Convener
Con
We are continuing our consideration of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Today’s meeting will be in two parts. We will meet this morning u...
The Convener
Con
The first group is on low-emission zones and parking prohibitions: removal of approved devices. Amendment 59, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is groupe...
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
SNP
Section 15 allows traffic authorities to install and maintain approved devices for the operation and detection procedure for the LEZ scheme. It also allows f...
The Convener
Con
No committee member has indicated that they wish to speak. Does the cabinet secretary want to wind up? I think that you have said enough.
Michael Matheson
SNP
Yes. Amendment 59 agreed to. Section 15, as amended, agreed to. Section 16 agreed to. After section 16 08:15
The Convener
Con
The next group is on low-emission zones: regulations on traffic signs. Amendment 204, in the name of Jamie Greene, is the only amendment in the group.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
Con
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Amendment 204 is about signage around low-emission zones. To my knowledge, there is currently no provision in the bill on t...
Michael Matheson
SNP
Although I agree with Jamie Greene that LEZ signs will be needed to make motorists aware of the operation of those zones, amendment 204 is unnecessary. The S...
Jamie Greene
Con
I thank the cabinet secretary for that very helpful update. Will he confirm that, if I do not press the amendment, we can be assured that there will be stand...
Michael Matheson
SNP
As I have stated, ministers already have that power, and we intend to have consistent signage. Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn. Section 17 agreed to...
The Convener
Con
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Against Chapman, Peter (North East Scotla...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 1. Amendment 60 disagreed to. Amendment 61 moved—Michael Matheson—and agreed to. Amendment ...
The Convener
Con
I remind members that if amendment 205 is agreed to, amendments 62 and 63 are pre-empted. The question is, that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we agreed? M...
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Co...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0. Amendment 205 disagreed to. Amendment 62 moved—Michael Matheson—and agreed to. Amendment 6...
The Convener
Con
The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettlesto...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0. Amendment 63 agreed to. Amendment 206 moved—John Finnie.
The Convener
Con
The question is, that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Against Chapman, Peter (North East Scotla...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0. Amendment 206 disagreed to. Section 18, as amended, agreed to. Section 19—Ministers’ gra...
The Convener
Con
The next group is on low-emission zones: financial reporting and review provisions. Amendment 207, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 20...
Jamie Greene
Con
Amendment 207 relates to the grant-making powers of ministers. Currently, ministers may make grants to help local authorities operate a scheme. The amendment...
The Convener
Con
At this point, I would have called Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 227, but he seems to have been delayed. I will try to bring him in during the debate, ...
Michael Matheson
SNP
Ministers have consistently stated that the Government would provide significant funding for transport-based air pollution and LEZs. In that regard, it is ri...
The Convener
Con
Brian Whittle has now turned up, but I will call him at the end.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Green
I am not a fan of reports for reports’ sake, so my proposal may seem strange. That said, if we are really going to tackle the climate emergency, we need the ...
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Amendment 65, in my name, clarifies that local authorities should be carrying out reviews of their LEZs without ministerial direction. As it stands, local au...
The Convener
Con
I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 227 and other amendments in the group.