Meeting of the Parliament 01 March 2016
I thank Sandra White for her flattering remarks. The saying, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts,” comes to mind—maybe we should beware of Sandra White.
The Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill seeks to address a problem that we would all like to be resolved. As members have mentioned, inconsiderate parking can be not only a nuisance but a serious impediment to pedestrians, who may have difficulties dealing with unexpected obstacles. I am glad that we can all agree on the need to tackle that behaviour, but we must find a solution that is proportionate as well as effective.
I will be pleased if the issue is settled in the next session of Parliament, as that will allow the time to scrutinise the proposals in detail and ensure that the public are protected from unintended consequences. The key is to protect vulnerable pedestrians without imposing undue burdens on law enforcement or getting in the way of perfectly reasonable or, indeed, necessary parking.
As someone with mobility difficulties, I speak from personal experience about how difficult it is when a pavement or dropped kerb is blocked and I find myself left with little option but to take a longer route and move around on to the road. To call that an inconvenience is an understatement. For people like me, such a situation can be distressing and even dangerous as they try to negotiate between cars. In addition, parents with pushchairs will, understandably, not want to be forced to go around parked cars and on to dangerous roads between other parked vehicles. That is also a key point.
Furthermore, frequent parking on footways can cause wear and tear that eventually manifests as uneven pavements. Such damage can represent a real danger to pedestrians, especially vulnerable ones, and is the last thing that local authorities need.
We can all agree that such inconsiderate parking must be tackled, and I am glad that we have this chance to discuss our approach at length. The question that remains is how best to go about it. I have always maintained the position that legislation must be targeted and proportionate if it is to be effective and worth while. That must be applied to the bill. Sadly, the blanket ban that it proposes would fail the test of proportionality. Of course I agree that such inconsiderate parking should not be tolerated, but there are many instances when parking partly on a pavement is the only available option and can be done without obstructing pedestrians’ access. Therefore, it would not be sensible to use a blanket measure.
I am sure that members are aware of instances in which parking with two wheels on a pavement has left sufficient room for pedestrians to pass while allowing traffic to flow freely on the road. That is a key point because it would obviously be counterproductive to impose a ban only for it to result in constant road blockages. As long as such parking can be done in a way that allows more than enough room for all pedestrians to pass freely, I do not see the problem with it and certainly do not see the benefit of banning it.
The compromise that I would like to emerge would find a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. For that reason, I am glad we have the chance to return to the issue in the next session of the Parliament should we wish. That would give us the opportunity to advocate a fresh approach that upholds the principle of protecting vulnerable pedestrians while avoiding the unintended consequences of which I spoke.
I can understand the temptation to push through a blanket ban because it is right to say that we should not tolerate forcing vulnerable pedestrians to move around parked cars on pavements or dropped footways. However, we would not be serving the public if we simply imposed a blanket ban and left motorists, as well as law enforcement officers, to clear up the mess. I will pick up on that last point later.
I look forward to listening to the debate.
17:27