(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
After the momentous events that we have just seen, I invite the House to turn its attention to responsible parking in Scotland.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mark Lazarowicz
Time is limited, I am afraid. I might give way later, depending on how much progress I make.
Although the Bill is limited in scope compared with other issues that Scotland will have to discuss and decide on shortly, it deals with an issue that many constituents feel strongly about and that affects their daily lives, as I shall explain briefly later.
Before doing so, I will explain to the House why I thought it necessary and appropriate to introduce the Bill in the House of Commons. Under the Scotland Act 1998, transport in Scotland is generally the responsibility of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, but some aspects are reserved, such as the subjects covered by the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
In most respects, that reservation makes sense. It ensures, for example, that the same rules of the road apply across Great Britain. However, it also includes some provisions on parking. There are conflicting views and opinions on whether the Scottish Parliament can legislate on irresponsible or obstructive parking. Some legal advice has suggested that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate in that area.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I speak as a former lawyer. Why is this matter not being dealt with under the Scotland Act 1998? Surely that has the majority of the provisions and is the mechanism by which one could achieve the change that the hon. Gentleman so obviously wants.
Mark Lazarowicz
As I just said, there is a strong argument in favour of the position that the hon. Gentleman has set out, but legal advice from the non-Government Bills unit in the Scottish Parliament suggests that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate in this area. As a result, attempts by Back-Bench Members of the Scottish Parliament to introduce the equivalent of private Members’ Bills on this topic have so far been unable to make progress.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman not putting the cart before the horse? Rather than clogging up the legislative timetable in this place, why does he not wait for the independence referendum, because this Bill may well become redundant very quickly?
Mark Lazarowicz
My Bill is an attempt to deal with a simple issue in a very restricted way. Even if, by some mischance, the vote went in favour of independence, these provisions could be passed very quickly and would not have to wait for two years or more to be attended to.
Guy Opperman
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman explain what the procedure would be? He is introducing a Bill to this House, but in 11 days’ time we have an independence referendum. If the referendum was carried, the Bill would have begun in this House, but Scotland would have become independent. The reality would surely be that his Bill would struggle, given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yorkshire made clear—
Guy Opperman
It is a very small and insignificant part of Yorkshire, as I am sure our other colleagues from Yorkshire would say. My point is that surely the Bill would be hamstrung by the procedures of this House.
Mark Lazarowicz
There is no reason why the Bill should be delayed if people approach it constructively. A Bill is currently being proposed in the Scottish Parliament by a Scottish National party MSP, Sandra White, and has support across the spectrum, including from Conservative MSPs. It has reached a point of being unable to proceed further because of conflicting legal opinion. Because of his legal background, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) will be aware that with issues such as parking fines, even of the smallest nature, or some other infraction of the Road Traffic Act 1991, some people will go to any length to appeal. No one would want there to be a challenge some years down the road because of some dubiety about the legislation.
I believe that there will be a no vote in a couple of weeks’ time. I am proceeding on that basis and hope that Government Members will do so as well. The Bill in the Scottish Parliament has all-party support and support from a wide range of non-governmental organisations, but at the moment it is basically stuck because of conflicting legal opinions in the Scottish Parliament.
Mark Lazarowicz
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will make a bit more progress. Perhaps I will take interventions at the end of my remarks if I have time.
My Bill aims to cut through the thicket of legal argument by making it clear that the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence in this area. It would devolve to the Scottish Parliament, should it so wish, the power to introduce regulations to make irresponsible parking a criminal offence by amending schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, and to exclude from the reservations to the UK Parliament provisions relating to parking on pavements and related issues. If the Scottish Parliament chooses to do so, that would include the power to impose fixed penalties.
I emphasise again that the Bill does not change the law on irresponsible or obstructive parking in Scotland, but it makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament can do so if it wishes. I want it to be able to do that without any risk of legal challenge, because many of our constituents feel strongly about this issue and I expect it has been raised with many Members in their constituencies.
Let me be clear: I am talking not about off-road parking that causes no inconvenience to anyone, but parking that blocks entire pavements or impedes wheelchair users from using ramps, which is frankly a public nuisance. Even worse, such behaviour can be a potential cause of danger to pedestrians, particularly those who are visually impaired or disabled in some way. If blind or partially sighted people are forced into the road to get by, they cannot see oncoming traffic. Equally, parking at dropped kerbs blocks the place where wheelchair users can cross the road most easily. It is not just the disabled who are affected by disruptive parking, but the elderly, parents with pushchairs, and children and pedestrians more generally.
Mark Lazarowicz
In practice, there is difficulty implementing and enforcing different interpretations of the legislation. That is why the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) will promote a similar private Member’s Bill for England and Wales in the next couple of weeks. If my Bill progresses, it will go into Committee, which will investigate the points in more detail. That will allow the Scottish Parliament to go through the same procedure at an appropriate stage, which could be fairly quickly since the nature of its constitution enables it to make legislation more quickly. Irresponsible parking is not in the interests of motorists as it can make roads more congested and choke traffic. As I said, this issue affects many parts of the UK, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham will promote a Bill for the rest of Great Britain. My Bill seeks to allow progress to be made in Scotland, for the reasons I have given.
The hon. Member for Hexham asked about the legal position. I tend to agree with the view that this issue does not fall outside devolved competences, but there are opinions to the contrary and I want to ensure once and for all that there is no doubt about the Scottish Parliament’s ability to bring forward legislation of this nature.
As I have said, the Bill is supported by various non-governmental organisations in Scotland including, Guide Dogs, Living Streets and Sustrans. My initiative also has the support of the MSP who has introduced a Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Although we have diametrically opposed views on independence, we agree that, whatever Scotland decides on 18 September, the proposal is for a simple, straightforward change to make our streets and pavements safe and more accessible, which is long overdue.
The Bill should be a non-party issue. I have therefore been in touch with the UK and Scottish Governments. I am grateful for the contact that I have had with them. I understand that the Government’s position is that primary legislation is not necessary to achieve the objectives I have set out, and the Scottish Government might believe that the powers are a devolved competence. That is a matter of some disagreement, but the reality is that, whatever is said in the House, MSPs of different parties have, in different ways, tried to introduce such legislation for more than seven years. They never get anywhere because of the difference of opinion on the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on such matters.
I want action to be taken to tackle this problem in our communities. If the Minister can offer a better way forward than my Bill, I will be content with it. I recognise that, in practice, the changes I seek can be made only with the active co-operation and support of both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. However, I want action, so I wait with interest to see what the Minister says later in the debate.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I rise to speak briefly on three fundamental issues. First, I am a lawyer. Secondly, I am concerned about the Scottish referendum. My constituency borders Scotland and I have spent an awful lot of time there over the past nine months trying to make the case for the Union. I will be going back there on 18 September, as many colleagues will, to continue to fight for the Union. Thirdly, in a former life as a barrister, for my sins, I was adviser to the Automobile Association on all matters parking. I had input into the Government’s consideration of wheel clamping and various other grave and weighty matters, which shows what an eminent and stellar legal practice I had before the good burghers of Hexham elevated me to a proper place for the conduct of legal studies.
My previous experience dates back to Vine v. London borough of Waltham Forest, the test case on parking that was conducted all the way up to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has made great efforts to introduce the Bill. He spoke of the ability of those who are concerned with parking matters to take litigation to the nth degree. I went all the way to the Court of Appeal on a disputed judgment and received a 2:1 decision from their lordships over the princely sum of, I believe, £40, so I do not underestimate the power of the courts and litigants to take such matters to the nth degree.
That is why I have concerns about the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. I speak for myself and cannot speak for those who represent various bits of Yorkshire and other places besides—
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Unimportant bits of Yorkshire.
Guy Opperman
Obviously.
My concern is that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to take a course of action in the House 10 days before the referendum. The powers we have given in the Scotland Act 2012 are supposed to have devolved the very same powers that he seeks to pass in the Bill. In addition, even more powers will go to Scotland if the referendum is successful. With great respect to him, that is a recipe for disaster.
If I can speak up for my former profession, if there is ever such a thing as a lawyers’ charter, it is passing a Bill in one House of Parliament when another House of Parliament seeks to claim that it has priority. The laudable objective of outlawing the sort of parking that seems wrong to many people would be mired in the courts on an issue of constitutional law—it is hard to believe that parking matters could go to the higher courts, but I am living proof that it has happened on many occasions—and so the Bill might hamper the very objective it seeks. I have serious questions, therefore, about the legal and constitutional basis going forward.
Guy Opperman
That is the problem. In theory, if it concerned a Bill passed by this House, it would be determined by the High Court in this country, then the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court. However, were one to be litigious and difficult—and Lord knows there are plenty of organisations that are—one could say, “No, this is a matter for the Scottish House and Scottish courts”. There might then be judicial review of the power of this House to introduce the legislation, and we would have the bizarre situation where a court might assess the legal merits on two particular bases under two different bits of legislation. If some of the legal arguments are correct—the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith accepts that there are legal arguments against his proposal—they would undermine the legal and statutory basis of his Bill.
Mark Lazarowicz
I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Bill carefully. Currently, if legislation is passed by the Scottish Parliament, there is the possibility of a legal challenge in the Supreme Court, as he knows. The point of the Bill is to remove that possibility by specifically giving the Scottish Parliament the devolved competence so that there can be no dispute. The whole point is to reduce the possibilities he talks about.
Guy Opperman
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but as we all discover when we get into Parliament, the law of unintended consequences is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most powerful law passed by any Government or lawmakers.
I am not aware of the scale and measure of the legal advice, but Ministers far above my pay grade are always being asked to reveal their advice. The hon. Gentleman is far more experienced than me and will know that, as is always the case, the Minister cannot reveal it. Surely, however, the legal advice from the Scottish Attorney-General and the lawyers who have disputed this matter over the past few years must be in the public domain and should be taken into consideration. I struggle to accept the Bill given that seven years into proceedings on this matter, lawyers have still not agreed on the appropriate legal and constitutional way forward. In that respect, I am greatly concerned that we might pass a Bill that would be enmeshed in legal process.
I merely wanted to make those observations. I fully understand the purpose of the Bill, as clearly one would wish to stop the things it aims to stop, but the bitter experience of my previous legal career and those of others—many lawyers have considered this particular point—leads me to question whether this is the right way forward.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
As a layperson, not someone with a legal background, I fully recognise some of the arguments the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) makes, but my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is exactly right: for the last several years, there has been constitutional bickering and wrangling over who is responsible for this matter. I ask the few of us left in the Chamber: how many of us have not come across an awkward individual who, inadvertently or otherwise, has parked their vehicle in a way that prevents someone with a child in a pram or a pushchair or a disabled person in a wheelchair from getting along the footway? I fully appreciate the point made over the last 10 or 15 minutes, but it is surely an obstruction. Of course it is, but in Scotland, the wrangling goes on.
The Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, is all about determining where competence lies. It is abundantly clear that the Scottish Parliament want to do this, but the problem is in gaining the clarity, which I hope today’s debate will allow to happen.
Only last week, I was out one evening on the referendum trail—as I have been on most evenings, most afternoons and most mornings of late—when I came across a property that had a boundary wall, a footway and a grass verge. A guy had pulled his vehicle across that grass verge. By pure chance, a lady coming along the footway in the opposite direction to me was in one of these small, not very wide mobility chairs—so she got through. She said, however, “I’ve been lucky, haven’t I? If I’d been in a normal-sized one, I would have had to go on to the road”. That is pure inconsiderate driving—in fact, downright bad driving. We are living in an era, however, where this guy could not pull his vehicle into his driveway because there were another two vehicles there. This is happening more and more often. The issue is to a certain extent about road users being inconsiderate.
Mr David Davis
Forgive me, but I speak as an English, rather than as a Scottish, Member of Parliament. The issue is not—for many of us, I think—whether or not the legislation is generally a good idea; it is the confusion over why the Scottish Parliament cannot carry this out itself. What is stopping the Scottish Parliament; what is the confusion?
Guy Opperman
Briefly, can the hon. Gentleman clarify this for me? If, as I understand it, this measure has cross-party support, and if the issue has been a matter of consideration by the Scottish Government for seven years, why have that Scottish Government not passed this Bill?
Mr Brown
Only two, is that right? Okay, in that case I will let the two argue it out with the other one.
The issue is not about clogging up the whole legislative programme; it is simply about deciding that this power could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am speaking at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition today, while the Government have a Transport Minister here. If the Bill were given a quick, clean bill of health, it would not fall to the Department for Transport to deal with, because the power would fall back through the Scotland Office. The Bill will not snarl up the programme of legislation for the Department for Transport.
If it comes down to money, we should look at the amount being spent by local authorities for dropped kerbs for people in wheelchairs and the like, and recognise that we still see inconsiderate behaviour by drivers who still block those kerbs. I emphasise again to Government Members that this is not a massive piece of legislation.
Mr Nuttall
I appreciate that this is not a massive piece of legislation, but could the shadow Minister give the House an idea of the extent of the problem in his constituency, representing, as he does, a Scottish constituency? Does he get a lot of complaints about this at his surgery, for example?
Mr Brown
I appreciate that my constituency is 300 miles away from here, but I think the experiences of my constituents who may use wheelchairs and such like is the same as that of people the length and breadth of the UK. It is not as if this is a specific problem there, but I would be very surprised if Members on the Government Benches had not encountered problems, and even seen it with their own eyes and thought, “That’s a bit of bad parking.”
If this Bill is going to be talked out, I do not want that to come from me, however, so let me just say that this is about doing nothing more than devolving power to the Scottish Parliament to deal with this once and for all.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am certainly not going to talk this Bill out, because I hope we will have a chance to get on to my Bill, which would ensure we had to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defence. That is a very topical Bill, and even if we do not have a chance to debate it extensively, I hope it will get a Second Reading on the nod.
My first problem with the Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill is its title, as everything the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said in introducing it suggested he was trying to address the issue of irresponsible parking, so I think he has got the wrong title for his Bill.
Mark Lazarowicz
I was advised by the Clerks that “Irresponsible Parking” would not have been acceptable but “Responsible Parking” would be.
Mr Chope
Clause 1, however, refers to “Obstructive parking”. If that phrase is all right in clause 1, surely it would have been all right in the title of the Bill.
I have more serious reservations about this Bill, however. As has been said already, it is premature because of the proximity of the referendum. However, it does not matter which way the people of Scotland Vote: if they vote for independence, which I sincerely hope they will not, they will take over the responsibilities set out in this Bill; and, as I understand it, a deal has been done—I am not saying it has been approved by this House—by all the leaders of the main political parties to the effect that if the people of Scotland vote against independence, they will be allowed what is called devo-max. I do not know exactly what devo-max involves, but I think it probably includes allowing the Scottish Government to decide on such issues as obstructive parking, rather than having them dealt with by the United Kingdom Government.
Philip Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a slight irony in the fact that Opposition Members are on the one hand arguing that we should not have independence for Scotland and that we are better together, while on the other hand they are acknowledging that this is an issue that is the same right across the UK but that it should be dealt with by more independence for Scotland? Is there not some slight irony and contradiction in the arguments they are putting forward?
Mr Chope
Well, there is nothing new in that, as my hon. Friend knows.
I was surprised, however, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) did not deploy the argument, in support of the no campaign in the referendum, that if Edinburgh was to become a diplomatic capital, the amount of obstructive parking by cars with diplomatic number plates would make the situation far worse than at present. If the people in his constituency and Edinburgh as a whole think there is a problem with obstructive parking, they should be very determined to vote no in the referendum to ensure it does not get any worse, with a whole lot more diplomatic vehicles there. That is a point that I make on behalf of the hon. Gentleman; it is a pity that he did not refer to it himself.
A further issue is that the Bill duplicates existing legislation. On too many occasions—not only on Fridays—the House tries to legislate on activities that are already against the law. The problem is that the existing law is not being properly enforced. I think the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is already against the law to obstruct the highway or to park on the pavement, thereby preventing disabled vehicles, buggies and people who are blind or have other handicaps from being able to move along the pavement. That is already against the law, and if that law is not being enforced, that should be a matter for the law enforcement authorities rather than for the lawmakers. People keep saying that we want more lawmaking, but let us think about whether we really want to litter the statute book with another piece of duplicate legislation.
There is a strong argument for applying the same road traffic laws across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and I am not quite sure why Scottish Ministers want to get involved in introducing separate offences for obstructing the highway.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is touching on some important points. Does he agree that Opposition Members have probably fallen into the Scottish nationalists’ trap? The nationalists are saying that they do not have the power to make these changes, simply in order to hide their own uselessness in governing Scotland. Rather than challenging them and telling them that they do indeed have that power and they need to pull their finger out and do something for the people they are supposed to be representing, Labour has fallen into the nationalists’ trap and accepted that more legislation is needed, thus giving the nationalists an excuse for not doing what they should be doing.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why would we want to give the Scottish Parliament more powers when it seems to be agonising at great length over issues as trivial as the one we are discussing today? I do not think it has demonstrated that it can be decisive and in control of events.
Mr David Davis
There is another way in which the Bill is a gift to the Scottish nationalist argument. No one has argued that this problem is unique to Scotland. Indeed, it occurs across the whole country. If the Bill were passed, it ought to be called simply the Responsible Parking Bill, rather than the Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill. Why should Scotland be different in this respect?
Mr Chope
I agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe in the United Kingdom. I was lucky enough to be educated at a Scottish university, and I would like to think that my degree will still be regarded as a United Kingdom degree, rather than one from a foreign country. I have given my reasons for not thinking that the Bill is in a fit state to go further in the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for the debate that we have had today. He clearly cares deeply about this important issue, and I commend him for the concern that he is showing. I should also thank my assiduous colleagues across the House for their interesting and thoughtful interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is no longer in his place, brought to the debate the benefit of his experience as a legal expert on all matters related to parking. He highlighted the point at the heart of the debate, which is the complexity of the legal and constitutional issues as they relate to this Parliament and to the one north of the border.
It was also interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I wonder whether he shares my view that devo-max sounds more like a new form of bathroom cleaner. It is a very clunky term, but it does point up the need and the desire for this issue to be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised the matter of the inconsistency in the application of laws north and south of the border, and I hope to be able to clarify that point in a moment.
I want to talk about the spirit behind the Bill, which I suspect all Members share. I also want to discuss the criminalisation of parking offences, which I believe the Bill seeks effectively to provide the headroom to do in Scotland. I also want to say a few words about the legal and constitutional question, although as Members and the occupant of the Speaker’s Chair will appreciate, this is not a time to be making policy announcements, given what is going to happen in less than two weeks’ time.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) spoke eloquently about the problems that parking on pavements causes for pedestrians, whether or not visually impaired; older pedestrians and ladies such as my mother, who are pushing along a mobility device, find it difficult to navigate, as do people with pushchairs. I well remember my experience as a mother of three bumping buggies up and down pavements, trying to find dropped kerbs. That is not easy, as soon as children get above six months old and, one cannot carry them in baby slings, and therefore they need to be on wheels.
I wonder whether other hon. Members recall during last year’s party conference season going to some of the fantastic stands put up by the association Guide Dogs to help us understand what living streets should look like. I note that Guide Dogs has challenged the Prime Minister not to the ice bucket challenge, although that cannot be far behind, but to a blindfolded walk—a chance for people from all walks of life, including Members, to get out there and experience the real impact of street clutter, including the challenge of vehicles parked on the pavement.
One thing the Bill and the debate have not touched on is the damage to pavements and the cost to local authorities of this irresponsible parking. It can be a serious problem in terms of maintaining road services and street services. I seek to reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and all Members across the House that I think everyone would agree with the spirit of what he is trying to achieve, which is to make parking more responsible, both north and south of the border, and to make the street journey of all sorts of pedestrians, including ladies and men with children, people in wheelchairs and people who are visually impaired, easier and safer.
Mr Nuttall
On this point about keeping pavements clear, is the Minister aware that following guidance from her Department on the removal of unnecessary signs on the pavement, more than 9,000 such signs have been removed, right across the United Kingdom?
Claire Perry
As always, my hon. Friend makes a detailed and well-made point. The Government strongly believe in removing all sorts of unnecessary street clutter, not only for pedestrians, but for drivers. The evidence base suggests that having more signs and confusing information reduces road safety, so I thank him for mentioning the work that is already being done.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has set out, his Bill seeks to devolve powers in relation to parking on pavements to the Scottish Parliament, enabling that body to legislate on this area and, specifically, to criminalise the act of parking on pavements—that is how I understand it. I will deal a little later with what happens in England. As he will know, that is complicated, as in some places there is a blanket ban on such parking and in other areas there is freedom to park on pavements, and we have a devolved approach on actually opting out of that. In some areas there are criminal sanctions, whereas in others there are civil sanctions. It is not clear that there is a role model south of the border for what he is trying to achieve with the Bill north of the border. I think what the Bill is trying to achieve is to clarify the legal position in this area—the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway referred to the ping-pong that has gone on between Parliaments for many years on this issue—to clear the way for the passing of a Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament on this matter.
Let me make brief reference to the Bill being presented by Sandra White, which intends to allow freedom of movement for all pedestrians by restricting parking at dropped kerbs, on pavements and double parking. The proposal was lodged on 24 January and although she has secured the right to introduce the Bill, it has not yet been introduced, despite having cross-party support. I suspect that, like me, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith shares some disappointment that it is not higher up the priority list for the Scottish Parliament, because that Bill could improve the passenger and pedestrian experiences for people north of the border.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, the legal situation as to who does what where in the parliamentary protocol is complicated. Under the Scotland Act 1998, transport in Scotland is, in general, the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, although some aspects remain reserved to the UK Parliament, including subjects covered by the Road Traffic Act 1998 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. For example, section 19 of the 1998 Act contains a provision relating to heavy goods vehicles parking on verges, central reservations and footways, so that remains a reserved matter for the UK Government.
Other legislation makes specific provision on parking. Section 43 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 gave the Secretary of State the power to create
“permitted and special parking areas outside London”
on application by local authorities. In those areas, certain offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and other Acts do not apply. Instead a penalty charge is payable by the owner of the vehicle. That continues to be enforced in Scotland, but in England and Wales it has been largely replaced by the Traffic Management Act 2004, which contains provision for parking on dropped footways in England and Wales.
In Scotland, the powers of the Secretary of State for Transport to make the permitted and special parking areas are exercised by Scottish Ministers. The Scottish statutory instrument made under the power states that the power was passed on devolution to Scottish Ministers.
I promised to set out the Government’s approach to parking policy in England, which may help to inform the debate. As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, we devolve responsibility to English local authorities for policy in respect of the provision of parking and parking facilities, such as the charge to park, the provision of bays, installing restrictions, and installing residents’ parking bays. What is proposed today is consistent with that policy of devolving power down to those who sit closest to the local road and pavement users in a particular area.
Local authorities implement local restrictions by traffic regulation orders for which they are responsible. The delivery of these local schemes is entirely in keeping with this Government’s commitment to decisions being taken at a local level. We are also committed to providing better scrutiny of those decisions.
Let me take a 30-second deviation to illustrate a local problem. In some areas of my constituency, including parking areas around Great Bedwyn station, there has been a long-running debate over residents’ parking bays and the traffic overflow that arises from free parking at that station.
On 30 August, the Department for Communities and Local Government published a discussion paper on a mechanism for giving a new right to local residents or local firms to raise a petition that will require a council review of the use of yellow lines or other parking provisions. I am sure that all Members will welcome the announcement made on 21 June regarding a package of measures to rein in over-zealous local parking practices. Those include restricting the use of CCTV for parking enforcement to schools, bus lanes, bus stops and red routes; introducing a new right to allow local residents and local firms to demand a review of parking in their area; reforming operational parking guidance so that it is less heavy-handed with motorists and positively supports local shops—something to which we are all passionately committed—introducing mandatory 10-minute “grace periods” at the end of on-street paid-for and free parking; and possibly a widening of the powers of parking adjudicators.
Turning back to the issue of civil versus criminalisation of parking offences, it may be worth noting that more than 90% of local authorities now enforce parking civilly. The Traffic Management Act 2004 imposes an explicit duty on local authorities to manage their network so as to reduce congestion and disruption. There are many advantages of civil parking enforcement rather than criminal enforcement, including the fact that local authorities are responsible for their local road network and therefore know best where the clutter and congestion are and where the pavements need to be clear. Of course that then frees up the police to focus their resources on the more serious matters. I am sure that will be a popular with many Members of this House. We want the police to be focused on the most serious crimes. Where we have the capacity, we want local authorities and others to carry out civil enforcement in a way that most benefits the local communities.
There are some endorseable parking offences. Broadly, those involve dangerous or obstructive parking, although there is often a lack of clarity over those offences. A driver's licence can be endorsed with penalty points or withdrawn.
Turning to Scotland, I have mentioned that Scottish Ministers have powers to make permitted and special parking areas in Scotland and therefore under the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme in Scotland any local authority can apply to Scottish Ministers for orders decriminalising certain parking offences. Under those parking enforcement regimes, a local authority can go out and place penalty charge notices on vehicles contravening parking regulations. That now applies to about half of the local authorities that are operating the system—