Hansard

I have a lot of amendments in this group—that is just because of how they have been grouped together—and I hope that members will bear with me as I try to get through them. The ones that are consequentials are technical amendments, and I will skip over those in order to get to the substantive points and the amendments that I think deserve debate. Section 43, which is on exemptions and exceptions, is an important part of the pavement parking element of the bill. On John Mason’s point, we have looked at different approaches. A number of members have lodged similar amendments on the minimum width of pavement that must remain free. That is an admirable intention. I am quite keen to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on the issue. Putting in a default minimum that would allow some form of on-pavement parking—that is my reading of John Mason’s amendment—would be a comprise. That would be a sensible alternative to not allowing any such parking at all. However, if 1.5m were to be a national standard to which local authorities must adhere as part of the exemption-making process, I think that that would create some of the problems about which members have concerns. It is not that I am unsupportive of having a 1.5m minimum width of free pavement; the issue is that putting that in the bill in the way in which it is currently presented would create, in effect, a rules-based system in which no exemption could be granted, unless there is 1.5m of pavement left available. There are lots of examples where the available pavement may be 1.45m or nearly 1.5m, but if the local authority still wants to allow some form of parking with two wheels on the pavement, it should be allowed to, because, as was alluded to, there is nowhere else to put the cars. That is a genuine issue. I was not aware of the work that Mr Mason had done in writing to local authorities. That is a great piece of work, because they are the ones that will have to deliver what the bill proposes and enforce the ban on pavement parking. They will have to work out where in their areas the exemptions should be and do what is right for their communities. The problem with a nationally decided rule on an exemption from the ban where 1.5m of the pavement remains free is that that involves telling local authorities what the exemption process should look like. I want to give local authorities the flexibility to make localised decisions, based on their knowledge of their local roads, which they know best, taking into account the circumstances, which do not relate only to the width of the pavement or—some of my amendments deal with this—the width of the road. The issue is more complex than that. It involves consideration of what else is around those streets, what other parking provision is available and where the cars will be displaced to if they are banned from parking on the pavement. We have not given enough time to consideration of those issues. I would love to read the responses from local authorities. I hope that the Government will work with Mr Mason and the committee to come up with a solution. I do not think that a 1.5m exemption is the solution, but I think that there is a solution out there that we can find. I hope that the bill team will reflect on that. Amendment 292 seeks to remove from the bill section 43(2), which says: “A footway may not be specified in an exemption order unless it ... has the characteristics specified by the Scottish Ministers”. My problem with that is that, again, it is ministers who will dictate what characteristics a pavement must have before an exemption can be granted. From day 1, I have believed that local authorities should make that decision, instead of the Scottish ministers laying down guidelines that local authorities must take into account. That is why I want to remove that provision. I turn to amendment 293. I contemplated flipping Mr Mason’s idea on its head and, instead of specifying that there should be a minimum pavement width, specifying a minimum road width. That is often done in other regulations. I have looked at many of the Government’s regulations on road widths and planning guidance. Originally, I included a specific width in amendment 293 but, having spoken to the legislation team, I decided that it would not be a wise idea to prescribe a minimum road width to allow the safe passage of emergency vehicles, because every road is different, and different rules are attached to different types of roads. That would not have been a sensible proposal, so I changed the amendment. Basically, amendment 293 says that the prohibition cannot apply—in other words, cars cannot be moved from the pavement to the road—if that would create a scenario in which the road was not wide enough for an emergency vehicle to get down it. Ultimately, my amendment is about allowing normal access through our roads. If moving the cars from the pavement to the road would make the road so narrow that it would not be possible to get an emergency vehicle through it, I do not think that the prohibition on pavement parking should apply to such a road. That is the intention behind amendment 293; I am sure that I will get some feedback on it. It would not solve the problem of what to do about where the cars will go, but it would at least give local authorities a bit more flexibility with regard to where the prohibition would apply and where there could be exemptions. Some of the other amendments on the subject are technical. Amendment 296 is on signage, but I take on board the conversation that we had earlier. I am keen to hear whether the Government proposes that the exemption signage will be standardised throughout the country or whether each local authority will have to devise its own format. We had a similar conversation in relation to low-emission zones, and I take on board the feedback that the Government will issue guidance on signage. Therefore, I will probably not move amendment 296. There are some other amendments on the same issue. I am sorry that I have so many amendments in this group. Another important one is amendment 298, which seeks to give local authorities an additional power in relation to exceptions, which are different from exemptions. It stipulates that the prohibition would not apply to vehicles that were being used for “such other purposes as a local authority may prescribe”. A number of my amendments deal with scenarios in which I think that an exception should apply, to which I hope that members will give some thought. I would like to think that local authorities would use the proposed power to prescribe the circumstances in which an exception should apply in a sensible manner and would not create exceptions simply to get round the legislation. I think that local authorities would make sensible decisions about the scenarios in which they would grant an exception. Amendment 298 would provide an enabling power. On amendment 300, I had a lot of consultation with stakeholders, as many of us did, around the prohibitions on not just pavement parking but double parking and the idea that adequate leeway should be given to people who are dropping off people who are vulnerable, are disabled or have impaired mobility. We will discuss the 20-minute rule later, but I would like the bill to state that those prohibitions do not apply if a vehicle is being used to pick up or drop off someone who is disabled, is vulnerable or has impaired mobility. Again, I am happy for the wording to be altered to make it as competent as possible, but it is important to give drivers the ability to pick up elderly relatives and drop off people with disabilities. That may take some time and they may have to double park. We need to accept that that is normal and that they are not trying to be difficult. I cannot see anything in the bill that will allow them to do that, and that is why I would like that exception to be included in the bill. 20:00 Amendment 301 is to do with taxis, which are also used to collect people and drop them off. They should be given a reasonable time to do that in the normal course of their business. The amendment does not mean that a taxi driver could double park and go and do his shopping, as it provides that it has to be in the course of collecting or dropping off passengers. Again, I would like that exception to be in the bill. I will not go into detail on the minor amendments in the group, which cover matters such as whether an officer is wearing a uniform, but I will comment on the one on emergency situations. The bill includes an exception in such situations as long as the vehicle “is so parked for no longer than is necessary”, but it is difficult to predetermine how long an emergency situation will last. It could last all night. It could take days to resolve an emergency situation in which someone has had to abandon their car in order to respond. I seek to remove the provision in relation to such situations but leave it in elsewhere in the bill. The final important amendment in the group is amendment 308, which perhaps gets to the nub of the matter. I am trying to get to an end point where it is local authorities that determine whether the prohibition applies. I want to give them the final say on both exemptions and exceptions, because they are best placed to take a view both in the long term on exemptions and in the short term as officers at the scene dictate. Let us give them the power to make sensible decisions in the circumstances that they are faced with, and not pre-empt that by setting down the ground rules. I will leave it there and not speak to the other amendments in the group, as I appreciate that it is a big group. However, it is really important that we get the exemptions and exceptions aspect of the bill right.