Hansard

I, too, thank Sandra White for introducing her Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill and for her work on highlighting the problem of inconsiderate parking. It is an issue that the Parliament has been debating for some time now, and I am pleased that Sandra White has been able to pick up on the work of her predecessors—our former parliamentary colleague Ross Finnie MSP and her ministerial colleague, Joe FitzPatrick.

It is quite clear that parking on the pavement and across dropped kerbs is irksome and inconvenient to many pedestrians but it is potentially dangerous to others, including cyclists, blind or partially sighted people, children in prams and anyone using a wheelchair. Even for the nimble footed and traffic aware, being forced off the pavement on to the road increases the risk of being hit by a car or lorry but, for many more people, the kerb itself is a barrier. Badly parked cars can turn a simple journey into an obstacle course.

To my mind, the bill is about trying to change behaviour. It is about encouraging us all to be a little less selfish and a little more thoughtful when behind the wheel of a car, but it is also about rebalancing our relationship as a society with cars generally. Motor transport is vital to us economically, but we should recognise that it is also often simply about our personal convenience and that that needs to be weighed against safety, our environment and quality of life.

In recent years, we have seen a move to lower speed limits in built-up areas, the introduction of car-free home zones and an attempt to make cars more pedestrian friendly, if I can use that term to describe the removal of sharp edges and prominent insignia from the front bonnet. The safe routes to school initiative from the early years of the Parliament was another helpful move in the right direction, but for those of us who often do the school run, although things might have improved, it is unfortunately still not unusual to see double parking and pavement parking on the very pavements that prams and young kids are trying to negotiate on their way to school.

Before we all get too self-righteous or sanctimonious, I would ask how many drivers here have not at one stage or another parked on a pavement. I am sure that we all justified it at the time, because it was what everyone else in a narrow street was doing or it was only for a minute or two. My point is that we all have the potential to behave one way as a pedestrian and another as a driver and there is a spectrum of selfishness or inconsiderate behaviour that we are all on and which we all need to address. I believe that the bill is not about punishing drivers; it is about addressing and changing that behaviour.

I turn to the proposed legislation. Although there is broad agreement about the general approach in the bill, there are also a number of concerns. I thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for flagging them up in its helpful consideration at stage 1. For example, it appears that, although the police and local authorities already have powers to tackle the problem of nuisance parking, several different laws can apply, depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, enforcement of those laws varies widely across the country. In many council areas, including my authority of East Renfrewshire, parking enforcement has been decriminalised, so parking regulations are now the responsibility of local parking attendants rather than the police. I share the committee’s view that it might be helpful to take a more consistent approach and that a bill to clarify and consolidate the legislation would help to make it clearer to drivers exactly what is and is not acceptable in the way of parking.

Sticking with my local authority for a moment, the recent decriminalisation of parking has not been without its problems. Residents and shopkeepers have been up in arms about overvigorous ticketing, particularly outside local shops. Parking restrictions that had not been enforced for decades were suddenly zealously implemented, provoking a pretty strong reaction from those on the receiving end.

Local people have now been consulted on what parking restrictions would be appropriate. I will not pretend that every concern has been addressed, but the approach has at least begun to reflect parking need and local usage. My point is that, in introducing any new measures or powers over parking, it is better to take people with us. That emerged strongly from the evidence on the bill. I thoroughly endorse the committee’s recommendation that any enforcement is

“accompanied by consultation and dialogue with local communities”.

The Presiding Officer has made it clear that she does not believe that the proposed legislation is within the competence of the Parliament. That is not an insurmountable problem. My former Westminster colleague Mark Lazarowicz introduced the Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill with exactly the aim of devolving the powers in mind. Unfortunately, like the previous members’ bills on the issue, that proposal fell on dissolution. However, it is my understanding, which has been confirmed by the minister and Sandra White, that Scottish ministers and the UK Government are working together to devolve the necessary powers. That might not happen before the end of this session of the Parliament in three weeks but, by agreeing to the general principles of the bill today, we will clear the way for the introduction of a Government bill in the immediate future.

I hope that Sandra White and supporters of the bill take consolation from the fact that, by simply taking the bill to stage 1, they have helped to raise awareness of the problem of inconsiderate parking. Just by debating the issue, they have already tried to change the problem. I am happy to show Labour’s support for the general principles of the bill.