Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 26 June 2019

26 Jun 2019 · S5 · Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Item of business

Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

McNeill, Pauline Lab Glasgow Watch on SPTV

That is a fair question. I emphasise that amendment 268A is a probing amendment. I suggest that there should be some public oversight of the private industry. If the committee agrees to Murdo Fraser’s amendments, they will give far-reaching powers and will introduce keeper liability, which I will come on to address. I suggest a code of conduct that is not statutory. The committee needs to be careful. The registered keeper cannot be held liable unless it can be established that they were driving the car when the alleged breach took place. In effect, that makes it difficult for parking companies to enforce tickets against the registered keeper. However, we should bear it in mind that many of those companies seek to enforce notices on very thin grounds. We have heard about the code of conduct that was the subject of a legislative consent motion on a UK bill that was introduced by Greg Knight MP. That code of conduct is entirely about trying to regulate the private parking industry, and it is a good thing. However, the introduction of keeper liability through Murdo Fraser’s amendments would go way beyond what the code of conduct seeks to do. As I said, motorists in England have probably experienced a more draconian approach by the private car parking industry because of the framing of the legislation there. In Scotland, there is what has been described as a loophole, but I do not believe that it is a loophole at all. Murdo Fraser’s amendments are about enforcement. Amendment 266 goes further than the powers that even the police have under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 by stipulating that, if a driver cannot “conveniently be contacted”, the registered keeper would become liable. I ask members to test what the word “conveniently” means. If the keeper of a vehicle were to be pursued and said that their son was driving the car, what attempts would be made to find the driver? After all, it was the driver of the vehicle and not the keeper who breached the rules. Keeper liability makes the keeper liable no matter what, which cannot be right. The registered keeper could give the correct details, but it might be decided that it is not convenient to make the necessary inquiries. Who decides what “convenient” is? We have no guidance on what that means—I certainly could not find any. Amendment 260 states: “It is immaterial for the purposes of this Part whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked”. To me, that is a sweeping statement to have in an amendment. In plain English, that suggests to me that permission does not really matter. I suggest that amendment 260 should certainly not have got past Scottish ministers, because the provision in relation to keeper liability is far wider than what exists at the moment. I accept that there are problems in relation to private dwellings. I have been contacted by businesses, including Barclays, which said that it has 3,000 parking spaces and wants to ensure that there are remedies, given that a lot of companies put up barriers. I have serious concerns about the amendments. I know that arguments need to be tested, which is what stage 2 is for, but the provisions in Murdo Fraser’s amendments are quite wide. As I said, Scotland has done things differently. There will be a code of practice, but we have not had a chance to discuss what the code will mean. If we are to introduce keeper liability as part of the code of practice, we need to be sure that the code of conduct, along with keeper liability, will not result in more of our constituents being affected. Murdo Fraser’s amendments would create an offence of parking by trespassing. Trespassing is not a feature of Scots law, so why should we now accept in Scots law a principle that we have not accepted previously? Believe you me: if the amendments are agreed to, more of our constituents will be affected—albeit that there will be a code of conduct, so there might be a limit, but we do not know what the limit will be. There are too many uncertainties. I ask the committee to scrutinise the issue very closely before such provisions are passed into law.

Search Hansard contributions

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 26 June 2019

In the same item of business