Hansard

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate on behalf of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which scrutinised the bill at stage 1.

Dennis Robertson is to be commended for all his hard work and diligence in producing the bill. He has introduced it and piloted it to this stage. He has a personal interest as a blue badge holder, which I am sure has probably added to the work required of him. In his opening speech, he helpfully set out in general terms what the bill seeks to achieve.

This member’s bill is small in size, but do not let that fool anybody; it addresses a serious matter and the committee heard some illuminating evidence about the scale of the problems that exist. As with all bills that come before the committee, we initially sought views on its content. We received 27 responses, many of which mirrored comments that Dennis Robertson received in his earlier consultation.

The committee also heard evidence from three panels of witnesses, representing local authorities, third sector bodies including disability organisations, and the police and the Law Society of Scotland. In a departure from our normal approach, we heard evidence from the member in charge, Dennis Robertson, in a panel alongside the minister. That worked extremely well, with the evidence from the member and from the minister dovetailing and complementing one another. It avoided duplication and, of course, reduced the time involved, for which my very busy committee was extremely grateful. I would recommend that other committees consider that approach for bills where the underlying policy is not contentious.

There were some limited disagreements between witnesses, which is to be expected and, of course, is welcome, as it allows the committee to test the policy fully. We are extremely grateful to all those who gave us evidence, be it in written or oral form. Without input from such people, committees and, indeed, the Parliament could not properly and effectively scrutinise legislation.

We heard that some 260,000 individuals in Scotland hold a blue badge, for many of whom the badge provides a lifeline, allowing them to park without charge or time limit in otherwise restricted on-street places. It also allows them to park on single and double yellow lines, with certain restrictions relating to the safety of other road users, and where there are no other restrictions in place. That can allow badge holders to access jobs, shops and other services.

We also heard that people misuse badges for financial gain, either by using fraudulent badges or by using badges when the badge holder is not present. Given that in Glasgow city centre, for example, parking costs £3 an hour, we can see the temptation to abuse badges in that way. The temptation is probably increased because the existing law is weak. The bill will provide additional enforcement powers to local authority officials and police officers; allow badges to be cancelled and confiscated in certain circumstances; and provide increased security features, which should reduce forgeries and other forms of abuse.

The bill will make it a criminal offence to display a badge that is not valid—it might have expired, or it might not be being used properly. As Dennis Robertson mentioned, a person’s nipping out to the shops on behalf of a badge holder, for example, does not entitle them to use the badge and nor does a person’s nipping into the shops when the badge holder is in the car. The purpose is to provide the badge holder, and no one else, with access.

The bill will allow the confiscation of badges that are being improperly used. That provoked a little bit of controversy in the evidence, as the badge holder could be inconvenienced as a result of somebody else’s actions. However, we were reassured that, if the badge was confiscated, it would be returned to the badge holder promptly, thus minimising their time without it. I could go on further about that, but Dennis Robertson gave the Parliament a fair show on it.

We heard interesting evidence from civilian enforcement officers about the problems that they face and how they undertake their jobs. Indeed, I understand that, as a result of that evidence, discussions are now taking place to allow the police access to the existing national database of blue badges. That alone could make a significant difference in tackling abuse and could make the task of detecting abusers more efficient.

The bill will also put in place a requirement for all local authorities to have a review system in place to consider appeals from persons who apply for and are refused a blue badge. That provoked the suggestion from the Law Society of Scotland in its written evidence that the provision is not compliant with human rights legislation. It wants the appeal to be to a sheriff, as an independent tribunal.

The committee discussed the issue in oral evidence and the Law Society conceded that its main concern was about the cost of judicially reviewing a local authority’s decision. It accepted that the existence of judicial review makes the provision compliant with human rights. Curiously perhaps, the Law Society was more concerned with legalistic propositions than with convenience and speed for the individual. The committee was content that the proposals in the bill provide for an independent review, minimise costs all round and satisfy the requirements of the European convention on human rights.

It was clear to the committee that at least some misuse of blue badges was inadvertent. I have given a couple of examples that could fall into that category. We asked witnesses how that misuse could be reduced and how badge holders could be better informed of the dos and don’ts of using their badges. All blue badge holders receive a booklet, but many perhaps either do not read it or do not understand it, or it might not be in the best format for them. A multi-agency working group is looking at that. We consider that much could be done to make it easier for badge holders to comply with the law.

The committee unanimously backed the bill. We commend the general principles to the Parliament and look forward to future consideration of a measure that is small but eminently worthy.