Hansard

I should start by redeclaring an interest as a blue badge holder. As a blue badge holder and a fellow MSP, I reiterate my congratulations to Dennis Robertson on bringing forward the bill and I express my whole-hearted support for it.

To respond to Christine Grahame’s question about supermarkets, there cannot be parking enforcement there because the ground is private, but it is hoped that the word “shame” will come into things and that the public will eventually realise that what happens is simply not acceptable. However, I am afraid that there is nothing that we can currently do about private parking spaces.

In the earlier stages, I outlined why I supported the bill. It brings a much-needed improvement in the administration and enforcement of the blue badge scheme as well as wider recognition of its importance. It is crucial that any update to the scheme brings tangible benefits to blue badge holders without placing undue burdens or legal concerns on them. The bill strikes that balance.

I strongly support highlighting the reliance of blue badge users on the scheme to freely carry out everyday tasks, as well as the need to close the gap in perception between those who believe that occasional misuse is acceptable and legitimate users who greatly depend on its benefits being available.

I highlighted previously a number of finer points that had yet to be discussed adequately in the bill’s early stages, including the issues of non-uniformed enforcement officers, penalties and the powers of confiscation. Amendments covering those issues were lodged and, although later withdrawn, led to constructive discussion, and I am pleased to say that I continue to support the bill in its entirety.

A range of views were expressed on the role of non-uniformed enforcement officers. Along with others, I was lobbied by Inclusion Scotland. It expressed the view that enforcement officers should be uniformed. However, we reached agreement in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee that the bill’s provision for non-uniformed enforcement officers would benefit the scheme and could be implemented smoothly.

The main issue is to pass a bill that strikes the balance between the most effective way of enforcing the legislation and showing—this is very important—an appropriate level of sensitivity to blue badge users and their personal circumstances. We rightly focused on how officers would be identified to users and how assurances could be given to organisations such as Inclusion Scotland. The committee was reassured that all officers would carry identification cards. The bill therefore strikes that balance.

That leads me on to a similar point with regard to penalties. The Law Society of Scotland highlighted concerns over the inclusion of a criminal strict liability offence for using a badge once cancelled and, in doing so, it used the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut analogy. However, the committee also considered Police Scotland’s views. It raised strong points in favour of the bill’s existing penalty provisions. Our task was to ensure that the bill struck an ideal balance between delivering improvements to the scheme and protecting its users. Fortunately, the views of Police Scotland prevailed.

On that point, it was mentioned that penalties imposed after unintentional misuse could hurt vulnerable users. Although an amendment motivated by such concerns was lodged, we were reassured that a person could be found guilty of an offence only if a level of knowledge or intent could be proven. Despite that, it is apparent that the enforcement of the legislation will require local authority officers and the police, where appropriate, to exercise their duties with a good deal of care and sensitivity.

Although we were agreed that in clear-cut cases of fraud we expect the perpetrator to be prosecuted, we would all expect discretion to be shown in the more complex cases that will undoubtedly arise. The bill allows for such flexibility and will minimise incidents of innocent misuse through clearer communication to blue badge holders. The proposed 10-point card will answer any questions in that regard. For example, the current instructions are too complicated and everyone who receives them—me included—simply flings them in the drawer.

For similar reasons, it is important that we consider carefully the implications of any new powers granted to the enforcement officers. With that in mind, we had a necessary discussion on the extension of powers to confiscate badges. Although a fellow committee member lodged an amendment to limit the proposed powers to non-valid badges only and not third-party use, it was agreed that the existing powers would substantially benefit genuine users, because abuse would be discouraged and parking spaces would therefore be freed up. Furthermore, reassurances were given that badges would be confiscated only for justifiable reasons and that valid badges would be returned within a maximum of 14 days, which is also important.

In previous debates, I touched on funding, which is an issue that is necessary to consider. However, the bill is proportionate in its resource requirements, and it will be manageable to enforce. The sensible decision against establishing an external review process is an example of that.

I am pleased to note that the bill’s implications have been discussed extensively and properly considered. As I have highlighted, the main consideration throughout has been to ensure that the ideal balance is struck between delivering scheme improvements and protecting its users. The bill achieves that balance, and it will bring benefits to the genuine blue badge scheme users, including myself. As a result, I am delighted to support the bill.