Meeting of the Parliament 20 May 2014
It seems only a minute—or maybe it was four—since I gave my opening speech. Still, what the debate lacked in longevity, it more than made up in its succinct, constructive and supportive tone in favour of Dennis Robertson’s bill.
In my opening remarks, I outlined why I support the bill, which will bring much-needed improvement to the administration of the blue badge scheme. However, I am aware that there are still some concerns over some of the finer details. For instance, there are a range of views on non-uniformed enforcement officers. I am a bit wary of that issue, the crux of which is the striking of a balance between the most effective way of enforcing the legislation and showing an appropriate level of sensitivity to blue badge users and their personal circumstances. Very quickly, we centred on how officers will be identified and whether that will give assurances to the likes of Inclusion Scotland. There is clearly a need for some further discussion on the point, probably at stage 2.
Liam McArthur mentioned the hoops that people need to go through to get a blue badge. That is not covered in the bill, but it is a difficult, complicated process. I know that, as I have gone through it. I sent in a picture of me limping along a pavement because I could not show them that I am disabled.
The Law Society of Scotland highlighted its concerns about the inclusion in the bill of strict criminal liability relating to the use of a badge once it has been cancelled, and other evidence was given to the committee about the potential for people to commit offences inadvertently. We heard concerns about what would happen where vulnerable badge holders were aware of abuse but had limited options due to their reliance on others around them. Along with the enforcement issue that I mentioned earlier, that highlights an important aspect of the enforcement of the legislation, namely that it will require local authority officers and the police, where appropriate, to exercise their duties with a good deal of care and sensitivity.
Although we agree that, in clear-cut cases of fraud, we expect the perpetrator to be prosecuted, we would all expect a certain flexibility and discretion to be shown in the more complex areas that there will undoubtedly be. We do not want genuine mistakes to be met with punitive fines.
If we are to have well-trained enforcement officers on the ground, we will need the money to fund them, which brings me to the vexed issue of funding and resources. Happily, a number of local authorities have officers in place who are able to tackle the matter at present, but they would have to monitor the working of the bill in practice. Perhaps that is something that we can deal with at stage 2. We also heard that there was anecdotal evidence of unofficial amnesties on expired blue badges where councils had a backlog in the administrative processing of appeals. The system must be properly funded if it is to work, and greater funding will be required for the process of reviewing decisions.
In areas where the police are responsible for enforcement, resources will have to be put in place. I was pleased to hear the assurances that were given at the committee, but we must monitor the situation in that regard.
I am sure that all the issues that I have mentioned can be highlighted at stage 2, but we must not lose sight of the fact that, at its core, the bill gives local authorities and police sensible powers—powers that they have long sought—to challenge the widespread abuse of the blue badge scheme. Therefore, I support the bill.
17:11