Committee
Transport and the Environment Committee, 22 Nov 2000
22 Nov 2000 · S1 · Transport and the Environment Committee
Item of business
Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
After section 69
As members will have noted, section 70 of the bill amends section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Executive amendments in this group amend that section further.
Before I speak on the Executive amendments, I will respond to Fiona McLeod's amendment, which seeks to delete section 70. I was surprised to see that amendment, not least because Capability Scotland has not previously raised any concerns directly with the Executive. Had it done so, we would have been happy to have sat down and discussed those concerns, explaining in detail why we think that the powers under section 70 are needed. In February, we raised the fact that we intended to take the powers in our proposals document, in which we set out the broad thrust of the bill.
The committee did not raise the issue at stage 1, so we did not consider the matter at that point. I know that Capability Scotland raised a number of issues in the briefing note that it sent to committee members yesterday, not least some that related to the European convention on human rights. I am confident that what we are proposing complies with the ECHR. I will be happy to respond to the points raised by Capability Scotland before stage 3, if that would be helpful to members. I will copy the response to the committee.
I stress that section 70 does not seek to discriminate against disabled people. Far from it. It intends to provide enforcement powers to ensure that people with disabilities obtain their entitlements, so that the scheme is not brought into disrepute. It is important that the scheme retains its integrity and that we enable the important enforcement provisions to be brought into play.
Over recent years, there has been increasing concern about the abuse and misuse of disabled badges, which undermine the value of the scheme. I know from my ministerial postbag that one of the things that most annoys people with disabilities is the selfish and thoughtless behaviour of people who abuse the blue badge scheme. I have letters from people and groups throughout Scotland—including Motherwell, Ayr and rural Perthshire—calling for tougher enforcement of the rules of the scheme. Nothing annoys people more than arriving at a parking space and not being able to use it because the system is being abused.
On the basis of its contacts with the various police forces, highway authorities and organisations representing people with disabilities, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Government's statutory advisers at a UK level, has recommended that legislation allowing badges to be checked should be introduced as soon as possible. That is the reasoning behind our amendments. DPTAC has asked for the powers and we seek to deliver them not to discriminate, but to ensure that the blue badge scheme benefits the people at whom it is targeted and meets its original purpose. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 296.
The Executive's amendments are important. Section 70 already provides the police, traffic wardens and local authority parking attendants with powers to inspect badges issued under the scheme. In the normal course of events, we would not wish badges issued under the scheme to be surrendered automatically if the rules are infringed, which could deprive the disabled person of the use of the badge.
However, we consider it important to have the powers for other situations. Regrettably, blue or orange badges are sometimes tampered with, in some cases when the badge has expired but has not been returned to the issuing authority. There is also a trading system, under which people will purchase stolen or lost badges in order to gain the parking concession unfairly.
When the constable who is inspecting the badge suspects that that is the case, I think it only right that action be taken against the person in connection with the offence and that the badge be immediately taken away from them to ensure that the offence cannot be repeated. It is also right for people to know that that power exists. That will deter people from abusing the system. The measure is not just about action being taken, but about the power for it to be taken.
Amendment 289 extends the powers in section 70 to enable a constable to confiscate the badge where there are reasonable grounds for considering that the person may not be entitled to use it and is therefore committing a criminal offence. There have to be grounds for the enforcement provisions to be used.
Amendment 288 is technical. There has been doubt about whether the powers in section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 are adequate for enabling regulations to be drawn up for an appeals process. Proposed subsection (7CA) under amendment 288 removes that doubt.
Proposed subsection (7F) enables disabled persons' parking badges issued in Northern Ireland and in European Union member states other than the UK to be recognised in Scotland, in the same way that badges issued in Scotland are recognised in those countries. Section 21 of the 1970 act currently allows for recognition of Scottish, English and Welsh badges only. To omit section 70 would remove the opportunity to ensure that the badges of people from Northern Ireland and other European countries outside Great Britain can now be recognised in Scotland. That would be a retrograde step. I am sure that Fiona McLeod has inadvertently failed to consider that point, so I hope that she will consider it today.
Subsection (7G) ensures that any regulations made under the previous subsections will be subject to negative resolution procedure by the Parliament. Amendments 290 and 291 are technical and consequential amendments.
I move amendment 289.
Before I speak on the Executive amendments, I will respond to Fiona McLeod's amendment, which seeks to delete section 70. I was surprised to see that amendment, not least because Capability Scotland has not previously raised any concerns directly with the Executive. Had it done so, we would have been happy to have sat down and discussed those concerns, explaining in detail why we think that the powers under section 70 are needed. In February, we raised the fact that we intended to take the powers in our proposals document, in which we set out the broad thrust of the bill.
The committee did not raise the issue at stage 1, so we did not consider the matter at that point. I know that Capability Scotland raised a number of issues in the briefing note that it sent to committee members yesterday, not least some that related to the European convention on human rights. I am confident that what we are proposing complies with the ECHR. I will be happy to respond to the points raised by Capability Scotland before stage 3, if that would be helpful to members. I will copy the response to the committee.
I stress that section 70 does not seek to discriminate against disabled people. Far from it. It intends to provide enforcement powers to ensure that people with disabilities obtain their entitlements, so that the scheme is not brought into disrepute. It is important that the scheme retains its integrity and that we enable the important enforcement provisions to be brought into play.
Over recent years, there has been increasing concern about the abuse and misuse of disabled badges, which undermine the value of the scheme. I know from my ministerial postbag that one of the things that most annoys people with disabilities is the selfish and thoughtless behaviour of people who abuse the blue badge scheme. I have letters from people and groups throughout Scotland—including Motherwell, Ayr and rural Perthshire—calling for tougher enforcement of the rules of the scheme. Nothing annoys people more than arriving at a parking space and not being able to use it because the system is being abused.
On the basis of its contacts with the various police forces, highway authorities and organisations representing people with disabilities, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Government's statutory advisers at a UK level, has recommended that legislation allowing badges to be checked should be introduced as soon as possible. That is the reasoning behind our amendments. DPTAC has asked for the powers and we seek to deliver them not to discriminate, but to ensure that the blue badge scheme benefits the people at whom it is targeted and meets its original purpose. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 296.
The Executive's amendments are important. Section 70 already provides the police, traffic wardens and local authority parking attendants with powers to inspect badges issued under the scheme. In the normal course of events, we would not wish badges issued under the scheme to be surrendered automatically if the rules are infringed, which could deprive the disabled person of the use of the badge.
However, we consider it important to have the powers for other situations. Regrettably, blue or orange badges are sometimes tampered with, in some cases when the badge has expired but has not been returned to the issuing authority. There is also a trading system, under which people will purchase stolen or lost badges in order to gain the parking concession unfairly.
When the constable who is inspecting the badge suspects that that is the case, I think it only right that action be taken against the person in connection with the offence and that the badge be immediately taken away from them to ensure that the offence cannot be repeated. It is also right for people to know that that power exists. That will deter people from abusing the system. The measure is not just about action being taken, but about the power for it to be taken.
Amendment 289 extends the powers in section 70 to enable a constable to confiscate the badge where there are reasonable grounds for considering that the person may not be entitled to use it and is therefore committing a criminal offence. There have to be grounds for the enforcement provisions to be used.
Amendment 288 is technical. There has been doubt about whether the powers in section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 are adequate for enabling regulations to be drawn up for an appeals process. Proposed subsection (7CA) under amendment 288 removes that doubt.
Proposed subsection (7F) enables disabled persons' parking badges issued in Northern Ireland and in European Union member states other than the UK to be recognised in Scotland, in the same way that badges issued in Scotland are recognised in those countries. Section 21 of the 1970 act currently allows for recognition of Scottish, English and Welsh badges only. To omit section 70 would remove the opportunity to ensure that the badges of people from Northern Ireland and other European countries outside Great Britain can now be recognised in Scotland. That would be a retrograde step. I am sure that Fiona McLeod has inadvertently failed to consider that point, so I hope that she will consider it today.
Subsection (7G) ensures that any regulations made under the previous subsections will be subject to negative resolution procedure by the Parliament. Amendments 290 and 291 are technical and consequential amendments.
I move amendment 289.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Lab
Amendment 286, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 287.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Amendments 286 and 287 provide Scottish ministers with new powers to pay grant to support a range of transport initiatives across Scotland. As I will explain...
Mr Tosh:
Con
I am distinctly uneasy about ministers lodging fairly detailed and substantial amendments so late in the day—that is a point of principle. However, on this o...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
I have some questions for the minister. I am quite happy with the amendments, although I share some of Murray Tosh's concerns about why they have come to the...
Helen Eadie:
Lab
I share the concern about the scenario at Rosyth, although I warmly welcome both the amendments. If I dare be political, the amendments are one of the great ...
The Convener:
Lab
As no other member has indicated that they want to speak, I will ask the minister to respond.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I want to respond to four key issues. First, I say to Murray Tosh that we indicated in the proposals document in February that we intended to introduce an ex...
Amendment 286 agreed to.
Amendment 287 moved—Sarah Boyack—and agreed to.
The Convener:
Lab
We will take a short break.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
Section 70—Badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons: enforcement
The Convener:
Lab
The next amendment for debate is amendment 289, in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments 290, 288 and 291, also in the name of the minis...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
As members will have noted, section 70 of the bill amends section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Executive amendments in this ...
The Convener:
Lab
I ask Fiona McLeod to speak to amendment 296.
Fiona McLeod:
SNP
Amendment 296 would delete the whole of section 70. I will first make a general statement and then respond to some of the minister's remarks on the amendment...
Janis Hughes:
Lab
I am concerned that we are discussing an amendment that deletes a whole section. As far as I know, before yesterday, I had not received any correspondence fr...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
I hope that Janis Hughes's logic also applies to amendment 289, in the minister's name. The whole intent behind section 70 and the granting of powers to the ...
Helen Eadie:
Lab
I share Janis Hughes's concerns; I received my e-mail only late last night when I arrived home after a series of meetings. Lobbying organisations should bear...
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD):
LD
I endorse what Helen Eadie said about the purpose of section 70. It should not be removed. Disabled people are not more or less honest or dishonest than any ...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
I would be inclined to vote against both Sarah Boyack's amendment 289 and Fiona McLeod's amendment 296, which would delete section 70. The section addresses ...
Mr Tosh:
Con
The minister was concerned about Capability Scotland's reaction and was anxious to use the time between now and stage 3 to resolve matters. That is a sensibl...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I had concerns when I read Capability Scotland's document. Like other members, I was a bit concerned that I received the information only late last night—if ...
Fiona McLeod:
SNP
I thank the convener for accepting my manuscript amendment. As other members said, the concerns are deep. I do not think that we should criticise a voluntary...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I am aware of the concerns that committee members have expressed. I want to make it clear that the core purpose behind the amendments comes from DPTAC. I int...
Amendment 289, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 290 not moved.
Amendment 288 moved—Sarah Boyack—and agreed to.
Amendments 291 and 296 not moved.