Hansard

I thank Malcolm Chisholm for his intervention. I was going to mention him later in my speech, because he and Mark Lazarowicz, both of whom are from Edinburgh, have been very supportive. I also thank him for signing the motion, as requested. As Malcolm Chisholm said, the bill was “eagerly awaited”, and everyone has constantly said that it is one of the best bills that we could possibly put through the Parliament.

Another issue that a lot of people do not seem to think about is that pavement parking costs local authorities lots of money in maintenance. The cost is not only for surfaces; when pavements are broken and hazardous people can trip over them, which can give rise to compensation claims. There is also the breakdown of underground pipes and cables. People do not tend to think about that, but it is a really important issue. The City of Edinburgh Council made those observations in its submission on the bill. It stated:

“The Council supports the introduction of a blanket ban on both footway and double parking with the option to indicate where footway parking is permitted. This approach will help us build upon the successes of our current Active Travel Action Plan and allow our draft Parking Action Plan to address these issues effectively.”

I thank the City of Edinburgh Council and other councils for their contributions.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland believes that

“A more effective and enforceable legal framework for addressing obstructive and inconsiderate parking could assist local authorities and councils in meeting the requirements of the”

public sector equality duty,

“particularly as the 2010 Act makes clear that due regard involves the need to ‘remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic’”.

In other words, we must put forward provisions for the Equality Act 2010.

The bill’s provisions could also help to give effect to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In particular, article 9, on accessibility, states:

“To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States ... shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment”.

The convention makes it clear that that measure should

“include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility”.

One aspect that has been open to interpretation is legislative competence and whether the Scottish Parliament has responsibility for legislating in this area. That led to lengthy discussions with the Scottish Parliament’s non-Government bills unit, which took the view that the Scottish Parliament did not have competence, so the NGBU would not, as a result, provide support in drafting the bill. However, there was continued dialogue and work between the Scottish Government and its officers and Westminster.

I also have to mention Mr Chisholm and Mark Lazarowicz, who is a former Edinburgh MP. They worked with me and others to attempt to resolve that impasse. The Minister for Transport and Islands, Derek Mackay, and his officials got the amendments to the Scotland Bill through in order to remove any doubts about competence. Those amendments were brought to the House of Lords at its latest reading of the Scotland Bill and agreed on. We should all be thankful for and proud of that. Once again, I thank the Scottish Government—in particular, the minister—for support in moving the bill forward and, of course, I thank the minister’s officials for all the work that they have carried out. The officials in particular never seem to get the credit for that, so I thank them very much for it.

With the support that I have outlined, any perceived obstacles to implementation of the bill now seem to be resolved. That is what this Parliament is all about; it is a Parliament that serves the people and it is a Parliament for the people. What better way is there to serve the people than to remove obstacles that prevent people from going out their door and on to the pavement, whether they have a pushchair, or they are blind or have another disability? People should have the freedom of movement that members in the chamber and people outwith it take for granted, even if it is just to go to the shops or the park, or to take their kid out in a pushchair. It will be a great moment for the Parliament if it decides to support the general principles of the bill. I thank members and look forward to hearing their speeches.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill.