Hansard

As Sandra White outlined, many members have tried to introduce a bill such as the one that we are debating. I congratulate her on her tenacity.

The Local Government and Regeneration Committee welcomed the opportunity to consider the Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Members of Parliament, especially those of us who represent urban areas, are all too aware of the problems that are caused by irresponsible parking—double parking, parking across dropped-kerb crossing points and pavement parking. Those issues are raised with us far too regularly. As a constituency member, I have received various complaints about them over the years.

If our inboxes and mailbags were not enough to convince us that the issue is of real concern to a great many people, the response to our call for evidence most certainly was. We received 63 written submissions, about half of which were from members of the public, and nearly 4,000 people completed our online questionnaire. We also received nearly 500 comments on Facebook. The fact that many of the responses were not from people with disabilities shows that the issue is of significant concern at street level in many communities.

I also thank organisations such as Guide Dogs Scotland and Living Streets Scotland for their contributions, which were helpful during our consideration of the bill.

In our consideration, we heard from a lot of folk, as I said, including Police Scotland and some local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing parking restrictions. They said that existing legislative provision in the area is complex and confusing, and that the bill addresses the absence of clear rules. Based on the evidence that we took, we agreed that the bill seems to be a sound basis for strengthening the law in the area. We felt that the fact that irresponsible parking is such a problem in some communities demonstrates that the existing legislative provision is not working.

On the detail of the bill, we highlighted a few concerns that were raised with us. First, the scope of the definition of

“public roads in built-up areas in Scotland”

seems to exclude A and B roads. We felt that irresponsible parking is also a problem on some A and B roads and we recommend that the bill apply to them, as well.

Secondly, we were confused by the exception that would allow parking next to a dropped kerb outside residential premises with the occupier’s permission. We felt that the bill needs to be clearer about whether that relates to a dropped kerb at the end of a private driveway. If it permits parking over a dropped kerb at a road crossing, that seems to be against the principle of the bill. We also considered that it would be impossible to enforce.

Thirdly, the Road Haulage Association raised concerns about the 20-minute window to allow parking next to a dropped kerb or double parking to make a delivery. However, we felt that 20 minutes would be sufficient for most deliveries and that deliveries that would take longer could be anticipated and more time scheduled to allow the driver to find an alternative more appropriate parking space.

Particular concerns were raised about implementation of the bill—especially about the power for local authorities to establish exempt areas, and enforcement by Police Scotland or local authorities. Local authorities felt that the process of establishing exempt areas and the legal requirements to signpost them effectively would cost much more than Sandra White suggests. There were also concerns that the bill could not be enforced effectively within existing resources.

We sought particular assurances that the bill would address the lack of consistency in how parking issues are dealt with across Scotland. We were, therefore, disappointed that Police Scotland and local authorities felt that the bill would do little to create a consistent approach across the country, and we noted the minister’s comment that further work would be required to address the issue. In highlighting those points, however, we note the Scottish Government’s commitment to supporting a similar bill in the next parliamentary session, and the minister’s assurances that some aspects of the policy will be given further consideration.

We hope that local authorities will strike the right balance between keeping footways accessible and ensuring that there are sufficient parking opportunities in built-up areas. The bill should not just displace the problem from one urban area to another.

The committee is pleased to have played a part in highlighting the bill’s aims and, perhaps, in encouraging the Scottish and UK Governments to resolve the issue of legislative competence, so I welcome the inclusion of the relevant powers in the Scotland Bill.

I will finish by congratulating the member in charge on her tenacity and indomitable pursuance of the issue, and by welcoming the Scottish Government’s commitment to supporting a bill in the next parliamentary session, when the relevant powers have been devolved.

The Local Government and Regeneration Committee supports the general principles of the Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill.