Committee
Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 12 June 2019
12 Jun 2019 · S5 · Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee
Item of business
Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Graham Simpson’s amendments would remove the ban on pavement parking and replace it with an enabling power for local authorities to issue a pavement parking order to ban pavement parking on certain streets or in certain areas. That would fundamentally undermine the aim of section 42. Pavement parking is a significant hazard, particularly for people who have mobility issues, who use wheelchairs or who have visual impairments, and such parking should be banned outright with limited exemptions. I can only imagine the challenges that we would have if one local authority banned pavement parking while a neighbouring authority did not ban it. Each area would require signage to make that clear and huge challenges would arise. Amendments 287 and 288, in the name of Mark Ruskell, would add cycleways to the parking prohibition. I, too, looked at that issue, because I believe that parking on cycleways should be banned. However, I understand from the feedback that I received that it is already banned under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and that we should not duplicate that legislation. If that is not the case, I will support the amendments. One question is whether such a ban should be extended to advisory cycleways—the current ban is on parking on mandatory cycleways. All the feedback that I received from cycling groups was that they were reluctant for the ban to be extended, because that could have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of advisory cycleways that local authorities pursued. I understand that parking is already banned on mandatory cycleways. I hope that the cabinet secretary will confirm that, because that will determine whether amendments 287 and 288 are required. I have no problem at all with amendment 289, which would clarify that the ban covers “any verge or planting adjacent to the carriageway”, as I am not aware that parking on such areas is already banned. I have a lot of sympathy for amendment 290, but my slight concern is about how school entrances would be defined—how wide would they be? If it is simply where there are currently advisory zig-zags, I would support that. I am thinking about the practical implications and the areas that would be covered. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will cover that point. I am very sympathetic to the proposal.
In the same item of business
The Convener
Con
We are continuing our consideration of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Today’s meeting will be in two parts. We will meet this morning u...
The Convener
Con
The first group is on low-emission zones and parking prohibitions: removal of approved devices. Amendment 59, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is groupe...
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
SNP
Section 15 allows traffic authorities to install and maintain approved devices for the operation and detection procedure for the LEZ scheme. It also allows f...
The Convener
Con
No committee member has indicated that they wish to speak. Does the cabinet secretary want to wind up? I think that you have said enough.
Michael Matheson
SNP
Yes. Amendment 59 agreed to. Section 15, as amended, agreed to. Section 16 agreed to. After section 16 08:15
The Convener
Con
The next group is on low-emission zones: regulations on traffic signs. Amendment 204, in the name of Jamie Greene, is the only amendment in the group.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
Con
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Amendment 204 is about signage around low-emission zones. To my knowledge, there is currently no provision in the bill on t...
Michael Matheson
SNP
Although I agree with Jamie Greene that LEZ signs will be needed to make motorists aware of the operation of those zones, amendment 204 is unnecessary. The S...
Jamie Greene
Con
I thank the cabinet secretary for that very helpful update. Will he confirm that, if I do not press the amendment, we can be assured that there will be stand...
Michael Matheson
SNP
As I have stated, ministers already have that power, and we intend to have consistent signage. Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn. Section 17 agreed to...
The Convener
Con
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Against Chapman, Peter (North East Scotla...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 1. Amendment 60 disagreed to. Amendment 61 moved—Michael Matheson—and agreed to. Amendment ...
The Convener
Con
I remind members that if amendment 205 is agreed to, amendments 62 and 63 are pre-empted. The question is, that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we agreed? M...
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Co...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0. Amendment 205 disagreed to. Amendment 62 moved—Michael Matheson—and agreed to. Amendment 6...
The Convener
Con
The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettlesto...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0. Amendment 63 agreed to. Amendment 206 moved—John Finnie.
The Convener
Con
The question is, that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
Con
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Against Chapman, Peter (North East Scotla...
The Convener
Con
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0. Amendment 206 disagreed to. Section 18, as amended, agreed to. Section 19—Ministers’ gra...
The Convener
Con
The next group is on low-emission zones: financial reporting and review provisions. Amendment 207, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 20...
Jamie Greene
Con
Amendment 207 relates to the grant-making powers of ministers. Currently, ministers may make grants to help local authorities operate a scheme. The amendment...
The Convener
Con
At this point, I would have called Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 227, but he seems to have been delayed. I will try to bring him in during the debate, ...
Michael Matheson
SNP
Ministers have consistently stated that the Government would provide significant funding for transport-based air pollution and LEZs. In that regard, it is ri...
The Convener
Con
Brian Whittle has now turned up, but I will call him at the end.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Green
I am not a fan of reports for reports’ sake, so my proposal may seem strange. That said, if we are really going to tackle the climate emergency, we need the ...
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Amendment 65, in my name, clarifies that local authorities should be carrying out reviews of their LEZs without ministerial direction. As it stands, local au...
The Convener
Con
I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 227 and other amendments in the group.