Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill

Debate between Guy Opperman and Mark Lazarowicz

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.