Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

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

McLeod, Fiona SNP West of Scotland Watch on SPTV

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 amendments.

Why have these measures been introduced? Only two weeks ago, when I proposed amendments based on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the minister said that the orange badge scheme should not be tackled in the bill, as the issue was under review. I do not understand why her position has changed. She says that the amendment was lodged because there is evidence of abuse of the existing orange and blue badge scheme. However, the committee should have been given that evidence in order to make its decisions. What is the source of the evidence?

I refer the minister to Capability Scotland's briefing, which provides evidence of abuse of disabled parking spaces by able-bodied car users rather than abuse of the badge scheme. Indeed, in reference to Helen Eadie's amendment on parking at hospitals, the minister said that it is often the case that disabled parking spaces are abused. I take it that she means that the spaces are abused by non-badge holders, not by disabled badge holders, which goes against the grain of section 70. She mentioned that DPTAC is concerned by the evidence of abuse. However, I suggest that the organisation is concerned by the evidence of abuse of designated parking spaces by non-badge holders rather than by abuse of the badge scheme by existing badge holders.

The issue is discrimination, because the powers that the police will receive under section 70 will mean that they are judge and jury on a disabled badge holder; they will be able to judge the offence and to remove the badge from the holder there and then, if they so decide. A right of appeal is all very well, but an appeal 21 days or two months down the road is completely irrelevant to a disabled badge holder whose badge is removed immediately. It is completely unacceptable for a police constable, traffic warden or parking attendant to be judge and jury. Few other drivers are put in the position that badge holders will be in, although I read in yesterday's press that some legislation in connection with able-bodied drivers and the Human Rights Act 1998 is already under review. Yesterday, Margaret Brown was successful in her appeal at the appeal court, when it was decided that the police had acted as judge and jury over her in a driving matter. I urge the minister to take that point seriously.

Amendment 289 makes a pretty poor attempt at defining an offence. For example, proposed subsection (4BC) says that

"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting"

that an offence might have been committed, the constable will demand that the badge be surrendered and that the name and address of the badge holder be supplied. Subsection (4BD) of the amendment says:

"A person who fails to comply with a requirement . . . shall be guilty of an offence."

We are coming close to saying that there is anecdotal evidence of abuse of the orange and blue badge scheme. The minister should return to the position that she took two weeks ago and say that the scheme is under review in light of the benefits for the disabled car user. Amendment 289 simply benefits the able-bodied driving public and I urge the minister to withdraw it, to support my amendment to delete the whole section and to wait for next year's review of the badge scheme.

Search Hansard contributions

Transport and the Environment Committee, 22 Nov 2000

In the same item of business