Proposed Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill
Consultation Response from the British Lung Foundation, Scotland
Introduction
The British Lung Foundation (BLF) is the only UK charity to represent all lung conditions.
We provide a menu of support for those affected by lung disease and work in a variety of
ways to progress positive change. This regularly involves funding world class research,
working collaboratively to improve services, or providing support for those affected by
lung disease at present and in the future.
Our support takes a number of forms. Patient support typically involves the BLF Badge
Nurse Scheme or our helpline, website and publications. We also boast a network of over
250 local Breathe Easy support groups that provide a community of understanding for
those with a lung condition.
Consultation Answers
1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Yes/No/Undecided
Yes, British Lung Foundation (BLF) Scotland is in agreement with the general aim of
the proposed Bill.
2. Do you agree that legislation is a necessary and appropriate means of
addressing the issues identified? Yes/No/Undecided
Yes we agree that legislation is a necessary and appropriate means to address the
issues identified.
We are however mindful that common sense should be applied to the enforcement
of legislation so that the disabled pavement users the Bill aims to support are not
penalised by a tightening of parking regulation. For example, we are keen to
ensure that users of mobility scooters will not be disadvantaged by increased
regulation of vehicle parking. This is of particular concern to those in Scotland,
given the UK’s high rate of mobility scooter use.
3. What are the main advantages of the proposed legislation?
The main advantage of the proposed legislation would be a move towards ensuring
that pavements remain accessible to all pedestrians at all times, particularly those
whose movements are restricted by disability or vital equipment.
The proposed legislation would make pavements safer for disabled users, by
minimising obstructions. This could potentially reduce anxiety levels for disabled
pavement users, who fear that their journeys will be challenging and distressing as
a result of irresponsible parking on pavements.
It should also be noted that increasing the accessibility of pavements for disabled
users and reducing anxiety levels, removes two of the many barriers to social
engagement with the wider community. We feel strongly that steps such as those
detailed in the proposed Bill, which facilitate increased community engagement
should be welcomed.
Lastly, we believe that the proposed legislation would benefit drivers, by providing
clarity and consistency of parking regulation throughout the country. This would
enable drivers to be better informed and less susceptible to accidental violations of
the law.
4. Are there any disadvantages to the proposed legislation? Yes/No/Undecided
We note no significant disadvantages to the proposed legislation.
5. a) What is your assessment of the likely financial implications (if any) of the
proposed Bill to you or your organisation?
We note no likely financial implications to our organisation.
b) What (if any) other financial implications are likely to arise?
We anticipate that increased parking regulation may increase the need for blue
badges. Due to the recent and significant increase in the cost of blue badges across
most local authority areas, we note that disabled drivers may therefore experience
financial implications of increased parking regulation that non-disabled drivers will
not.
We are keen for this to be taken into consideration and for steps to be taken that
will ensure disabled drivers are not financially penalised as a result of their
disability, in the context of changes to parking regulation that are actually
intended to increase their freedom.
6. a) Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative
implications for equality? Yes/No/Undecided
We agree that the spirit of the Bill aims to increase equality, but do note certain
contextual concerns that must be addressed to ensure the Bill does not in fact have
a negative effect on equality.
For the first concern, please see previous answer to Q.5 b), which refers to the
possible financial implications of the proposed Bill to disabled road users.
Further to that, we also note with concern that for those with disability who
struggle to secure a blue badge, the increased parking regulation may in fact make
it more difficult to park at a manageable distance from their destination. This
could ultimately make it harder for the driver or passenger with a disability to
leave their house.
Providing that steps can be taken to ensure disabled road users are not financially
or physically disadvantaged by the proposed Bill, we believe the proposed changes
will increase equality by making pavements and roads equally accessible to
disabled and non-disabled users alike.
b) If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be
minimised or avoided?
We feel it is important to ensure that blue badges are accessible and affordable to
those who need them, regardless of local authority boundaries and suggest that the
current situation is reconsidered at a national level.
7. Would you want to see an education strategy as part of the Bill process?
Yes/No/Undecided
Yes we believe there would be merit in an education strategy as part of the Bill
process. We feel that a short educational campaign to accompany the potential
introduction of legislation, with a sharp, clear message, would be a necessary and
effective way to make the public aware of changes.
8. Who do you think should be responsible for enforcing the proposed legislation?
We believe it would be logical and reasonable for enforcement responsibility to fall
under the remit of traffic wardens. We imagine they would be best placed to spot
parking offences and that this responsibility would not amount to a burdensome
increase on their current workload.
We are less inclined to suggest police enforcement as we suspect it could take up a
disproportionate amount of police time that might be more appropriately spent on
other social challenges.
9. What penalties do you think should be imposed on those failing to comply with
the proposed legislation?
We feel that the penalties imposed upon those failing to comply with the outlined
legislation, should be consistent with comparable motoring offences, such as a
reasonable fine and/or points added to the offender’s license.
10. Do you have any other comments on or suggestions relevant to the proposal?
We welcome the aims of the Proposed Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill and
believe the suggested changes could have a significant, positive impact on the lives
of disabled people.
In view of increasing the accessibitly of pavements by reducing obstructions, we
feel that there is room for further regulation that would take into account nonvehicle obstructions, such as wheelie-bins. These can also cause problematic
obstacles to disabled pavement users such as those who are blind, or those that
rely on mobility scooters and wheelchairs.
For further comment or information, please contact Carolyn McCole on 0141
248 0050 or email Carolyn.mccole@blf.org.