gh a proportion of the total amount of money that was being made available. That was perhaps due to the fact that it was the first scheme of its kind, and a lot of setting up of the administration had to be done from the bottom up by local authorities. Nevertheless, if the minister goes forward, as he said, with his new social security agency for Scotland, I think that we should all be concerned to ensure that the cost of running that is not something that takes money out of the hands of those who need it. There has been criticism of the work capability assessment, and I understand why people are critical of it. However, I also worry that the alternative to such an assessment is some form of self-referral, which would be unacceptable. I think that the challenge that we have all around this Parliament going forward is to find an alternative approach that does what is necessary without making the mistake of leaving a gap completely. Finally, the minister has given the impression on a number of occasions, as often members of his party do, that there will be huge amounts of extra funding available for these new schemes. The truth is that that extra funding is not the subject of any commitment yet made by this Government. I believe that the minister is right that dignity, respect and fairness is the basis of the system that we must create going forward, but we must give the assurance to Scotland's taxpayers that their money, when it is taken for this purpose, will be used efficiently and effectively and that we will work at least as hard on the creation of wealth as we do over its distribution. I am grateful for the opportunity to close on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. Issues of social security have been a bit of a focus of mine in this in the period in Parliament. I thank colleagues passing present on the welfare reform committee, their clerks, the other spokespeople and the ministers and their predecessors. One of the issues that I first had involvement in was about our approach and the approach that Parliament is going to take to the imposition of the bedroom tax on our communities. I was grateful at that time for the many expert people that came and discussed with us the range of options, campaigners and policy experts alike. I think that Willie Rennie was absolutely right to talk about their involvement in the next stage of developing a social security system in Scotland. There are huge expertise outside of here. With new powers coming to this place, I think that one of the key things that the cabinet secretary said at an opening that I am very much welcomed was that we can move on simply from the effect of mitigating the bedroom tax to abolishing it altogether and that he will have our full support. The responsibility of MSPs in the future will be to design and implement a new and distinctive social security system in Scotland in many areas where, in the past, the focus has only been on complaints about decisions and systems taken and created elsewhere. I was struck not from one of the briefings but a comment that Bill Scott of Inclusion Scotland made last year when he said that the system needed to stop treating claimants as suspected criminals. Many members will also have seen reports over the weekend that some 85 per cent of the fraud allegations made by members of the public and eagerly solicited by the UK Government have proven to be entirely unwarranted. I think that Alex Neil was absolutely right to say that social security should be regarded not as a system of handout but as a basis for addressing need in our society. We should all be clear that we have a stake in a system of social security. We have a responsibility, yes, to pay in when we can but also a right to receive support when we do that. I thought that Christine McElvie was right to put it in a rights-based context. It must take account of our circumstances and the varying ability that we each have either at different times in our lives or because of particular barriers to employment that exist for various groups, whether that is in terms of ill health, old age, disability or some other reason. The social security system—I think that it was John Lamont that first made this point, and it is a fair one—develition of a social security system interacts with many of the other powers that this Parliament has over housing, education, job creation, the list could go on. Develation of new powers, therefore, I do not think that we can see that in isolation from the other areas of policy. Neither would we on the Labour side argue that we can see an isolation from the financial powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament. Social security is becoming a shared competence, sharing common standards across the United Kingdom about gaining the flexibility to adjust the system in a range of areas to suit need and reflect policy choices taken here. The challenge, I think, for the next Parliament, will be to make that system work in a way that does actually improve the lives of people on whose behalf this Parliament has been vocal in complaining in the past. Many of those issues will of course be tested in the upcoming election campaign, and I take the opportunity to wish those members who are standing as candidates well with the hope that they do give priority to this agenda. As Dr Murray pointed out, we are honest about the choices that we face as a society in relation to the benefit system. Elaine Murray also talked about the options appraisal, which the Government has kindly provided and published in relation to the governance of the new system. We certainly take the opportunity to endorse the view that social security should be a public function accountable to Scottish ministers and to the Parliament. We cannot outsource our responsibility and ambition for a fairer Scotland to a department or agency accountable elsewhere, and neither, given the experience of private sector delivery, would it be appropriate for a new system to be contracted out to those who might seek to make profit from the poor circumstances of many of our citizens. The focus of the Labour amendment has been on child poverty. In addition, we have agreements with the Scottish Government about raising support for carers, abolishing the bedroom tax that Roddy mentioned. However, we want a Scotland where the wealth of our parents is not the defining feature in the life chances of our youngest citizens. That is why we have indicated another area in which we will seek to use these new powers is by an increase to the Sure Start maternity grant, a payment introduced by the last Labour Government, in which we remain committed to using to assist low-income parents expecting their first child. I hope that the candidates in the election are honest about the choices that are available to us. I think that there is a risk that the devolution of significant social security powers creates an expectation that Scotland's politicians failed to deliver upon. It is therefore vital that all the parties are honest about where our priorities lie and whether or not we are prepared to pay for our priorities and indeed for a fairer Scotland. Labour is committed not just to using the new welfare powers that we have argued for but also the financial powers that we support for this Parliament. Since 1999, parties have had the ability to propose raising the revenue, but with enhancements to the devolution settlement, those powers become more and more flexible. Hugh Henry made the outstanding contribution in the afternoon. He was right to say that the choice has now become whether or not we choose to make change or only complain about what we do not like. The Scottish Labour Party chooses change. We choose to make Scotland fairer by action, not just words, and we are proud to do so. I therefore support the amendment in the name of McCulloch, Neil Findlay, and I encourage other members to do likewise at decision time. Thank you very much. I now call on Alex Neil to wind up the debate. Mr Neil, Cabinet Secretary, up to eight minutes please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I begin as a fellow member of the 1999 intake and pay tribute to Hugh Henry, who has served in this Parliament for the last 17 years, as a minister, as a backbencher and as the convener of a committee. During that time, Hugh has made a distinguished contribution to the Parliament, and we thank him for that. I also wish Drew Smith all the best, given that he is standing down after five years, and I am sure that he is young enough—as Hugh is—to come back at some future date. I begin just by underlining the commitment that I gave with a nod to Kevin Stewart in terms of fast-tracking benefits for those people who are terminally ill. In any humane society, that is an undertaking that we would all want to do to make sure that anyone who is suffering from a terminal illness gets fast-track for assessment and payment. It is a very good example of many of the improvements that we can make to the social security system that do not cost a great deal of extra money. For example, I have already announced that two of the things that we will do in relation to the flexibilities for universal credit are to offer people the opportunity to have payments made fortnightly instead of monthly. Sometimes monthly means five weekly, and for many people it is very difficult to budget on the meager means of income that they have on a monthly or five weekly basis. There is very little additional cost to the system of offering those people, if they so wish, to take up the choice of being paid twice a month instead of just once a month. Similarly, every stakeholder, including tenants organisations, has asked us to revert to the older system in terms of housing benefit, so that housing benefit is paid directly to the social landlords and not to the tenants. Under the previous system, 96 per cent of people wanted and had their housing benefit paid directly to the landlord, and the tenants themselves want to go back to that system. Of course, every tenant has to reserve the right to change that if they so wish, but I think that every stakeholder believes that that would be an improvement, and it is one again that would not cost much money at all to implement and one to which we are committed. A couple of other areas that we are looking at, for example, if we were able to time winter fuel payments to help people who are off-grid, that could make a material improvement to their situation as well. Again, only an admin cost would be involved in that if we were able to do it. Similarly, I believe that much more co-location between those who are dispensing benefits and making decisions about individuals in relation to benefit applications should be much more co-located with welfare rights services so that they can check almost right away whether they have been allocated the right level of benefit and have it double-checked to make sure that that happens. I think that that would take a lot of frustration out of the system and help enormously, again at very, very little cost if it is possible to do that. I deal with some of the other issues that were raised. John Lamont mentioned IT systems. He might be glad to know that, for those benefits that will rely on major IT systems, in the initial period, we will continue to use the IT systems of the Department of Work and Pensions. That is of necessity, because if we were to invent our own IT system, it would delay the acquisition of those powers by some years. As a trade-off, I think that it is worth our file. Even though we will have to pay the Department of Work and Pensions for the pleasure of doing so, I think that it would make sense in ensuring a smooth transition to continue to use those IT systems, which no doubt were designed by a Scotsman anyway, to make sure that they are going to operate until we are in a position to have our own IT systems. Similarly, I just mentioned with the BERT programme, I think that it was Willie Rennie who mentioned the benefits of the work programme, and we share his thoughts in that matter. Unfortunately, since the decision was taken to include in the Scotland bill the devolution of the work programme to the Scottish Government, the allocated budget for the work programme has been reduced at a UK level from nearly £100 billion to just under £100 million. Therefore, the anticipated amount that we were expecting at the time when it was announced that the work programme would be devolved to this Parliament, we were expecting to inherit a budget of nearly £100 million. The budget that we are going to inherit is likely to be more like £13 million. Neil Findlay is on the subject. I wonder if Mr Neil would care to comment on the revelations in the ferret today, the online journal about the links between his party and the private welfare to work lobby, and how they are involved in developing discussions with the Scottish Government on the way forward for the work programme. I am totally unaware of any such connection. I am sure that, on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Welfare, I am sure that neither of us has any links. I have not even heard of such an organisation. I have not read the ferret, but I will read it in my box tonight to see what the ferret is saying. Maybe the ferret has got it wrong, I am sure not for the first time. In terms of the work programme, it is a tragedy that the budget for the work programme has been reduced so significantly for the very reasons that Willie Rennie outlined, because it can make a major contribution not just to solving problems of social security and poverty, but to getting people with particular addictions, for example, on drinking drugs, back into a more mainstream way of life. I hope that the UK Government will reconsider that decision at some stage. I said in my opening speech that it is our objective to reduce bureaucracy and to reduce paper filling in all the things that cost money. I mentioned the assessments as a very good example of where we can improve the service for the individual and enhance the dignity and respect that they receive. However, one of the benefits of streamlining the assessment, not just within those benefits but streamlining it with assessments that are already undertaken by local authorities, for example, for a single budget, would be beneficially financially as well. Self-directed support already undertakes a lot of the assessments that are also undertaken for a qualification for PIP, personal independence payments. It seems to me that if an independent medical assessment service that can provide that service to everybody, the individual would not need to repeatedly have to go for basically the same medical assessment for different benefits, either from the local authority or from the social security agency. That is just one example where I believe that significant amounts of money currently spend in administration and duplication and repetition could be saved and do so to the benefit of the individual because they would not have to go for so many assessments, but the money saved could then be reinvested in the system to further improve how we are delivering benefits as well as maybe improve the benefits themselves. It is that kind of imaginative innovative approach that we require, Presiding Officer. I am very keen that the administration of the benefit system is as close to the people affected as possible. Although we will have a national agency, local delivery, I think that there will be an essential principle for success and for efficiency and effectiveness. In all those areas, Presiding Officer, I am very delighted that there is a fairly broad consensus in the chamber. I think that we should build in that consensus and build a new social security system in Scotland that we can all be proud of. That concludes the debate on social security. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15759, in the name of Sandra White on the Footway Parking and Double Parking, Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to please press their requests to speak what is now or as soon as possible. I call on Sandra White to speak to and move the motion. Ms White, you have 10 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is a great pleasure, not just for me but for many other people to bring this bill before the Parliament today. As some members may know, the bill started out as a proposal by the former MSP Ross Finney back in 2010. 123 responses were received to the consultation, and of those, 83 per cent supported the proposals. Unfortunately, the bill fell due to parliamentary elections in 2011. However, it was then taken up by Joe Fitzpatrick MSP in 2012, who, unfortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, had to withdraw the proposal after becoming a minister in the present Scottish Government. It is well worth noting that the second consultation received 414 responses with 95 per cent in favour of the proposed bill. That highlights the fact that the bill was very important. It is one of the biggest responses to any member's bill that we have had in the Scottish Parliament. As I said before, the bill fell because Joe Fitzpatrick became a minister, and the baton, if you like to call it that, has been more of a marathon than a sprint was taken up by myself. I am proud to have stuck with the proposal and have been able to take it forward to this stage. I hope that the principles of the bill will be agreed upon today. I want to thank the many individuals and groups who took part in the consultations and continue to take an absolutely keen interest in what is going on. I would also like to thank the members of the local government and regeneration committee for their hard work, dedication and support in scrutinising the bill and making the following conclusion that we report to the Parliament that we are content with the general principles of the bill and recommend that the bill be agreed to at stage 1. I must point out that Cameron Buchanan in particular did a sterling job in appearing in the committee's YouTube video, calling for people to make their voices heard. I do understand, Mr Buchanan, that this video has become quite a hit on YouTube. Maybe you should look it up for that. I would also like to thank the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their scrutiny of the bill and their conclusions that it is content with the delegated powers provisions contained in the bill. I also want to pay particular thanks to Living Streets, Guides Dog Scotland and the coalition of charities who supported the bill and dedicated a lot of their time and resources to help in the drafting of the bill. All I can say is thank you very much. In essence, the bill seeks to restrict the obstruction of footways and drop kerbs by part vehicles and the double parking of vehicles on carriageways on all public roads in built-up areas in Scotland. A number of exemptions are set out in the bill and, in addition, local authorities can exempt areas from the bill's provisions. The bill also seeks to prohibit vehicles from waiting whilst obstructing a footway or drop kerb or when double parked except in a limited number of circumstances. For many users of footways, the issue of obstructive parking is very real and one that can have a hugely detrimental effect on their daily lives. The following excerpt from the submission to the committee by Guides Dog Scotland sums up the issue perfectly. In a Guides Dog streets ahead survey, pavement parking was the top obstacle cited by all respondents, 81.7 per cent, and this rose to 88 per cent for blind and partially sighted people who listed it as a problem that is seen regularly encountered. Parking and pavements affects all people who use the streets, particularly problematic and dangerous, not solely for slight sight impaired, also for older people, people with pushchairs, walking toddlers, wheelchair users, mobility scooters and other people with mobility and cognitive impairments. Pavement parking forces all of those people to walk into the road among moving traffic. I have to leave for a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, but I congratulate the member on her perseverance with the bill, because I know from the many representations that I have had from constituents that this is one of the most eagerly awaited members balls that I have ever come across. I thank Malcolm Chisholm for the intervention. I was going to mention Malcolm in the speech later on, because he has been very supportive along with Mark Lasavitch, both from Edinburgh. I thank him for signing the motion as requested. I thank him very much for that. As Malcolm has said, it is a very highly awaited bill, and basically everyone has constantly said that this is one of the best bills that we could possibly put through the Parliament. Another issue that a lot of people do not seem to think about is that payment parking costs local authorities lots of money in maintenance, not only on the surface but broken hazardous people tripping over it and can give rise to compensation claims, but also the background of underground pipes and cables. Something that people do not tend to think about, but it is a really important one. The City of Edinburgh makes the same observations in its submission to the bill, and it also states that the council supports the introduction of a blanket man on both footway and double parking with the option to indicate where footway parking is permitted. That approach will help us to build upon the success of our current active travel action plan and allow our draft parking action plan to address those issues effectively. I thank the City Council for its contribution along with other councils as well. The Equality Human Rights Commission believes that a more effective and enforceable legal framework for addressing obstructive inconsiderate parking could assist local authorities and councils in meeting the requirements of the public sector equality duty, particularly as the 2010 acts make it clear that due regard involves the need to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic. In other words, we must go forward and put forward for the 2010 act. The bill's provisions could also help give effect to the United Kingdom obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disability. Particle 9, in particular, is accessibility. That states to enable persons with disabilities to live independently and to participate fully in all aspects of lives. States should take appropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilities access on all equal basis with others to the physical environment. The convention makes it clear that that measure should include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility. One area of the bill that has been open to interpretation is the aspect of legislative competence and whether or not the Scottish Parliament has a responsibility to legislate in that area. It has led to lengthy discussions with the Scottish Parliament non-government bills unit, which took the view that the Scottish Parliament did not have the competence and, as such, would not provide support in drafting the bill. However, thanks to continued dialogue and the work of the Scottish Government and its officers between the Scottish Government and Westminster, I have to mention yourself, Mr Chisholm, and Mark Lachowicz, the previous MP for Edinburgh, who worked along, not just with me but others, to attempt to resolve the impasse. The minister, Derek Mackay, and his officials who got the amendments to the Scotland Bill through in order to remove any doubts over competence. Those were brought forward to the House of Lords at the latest reading of the Scotland Bill and agreed on, so I think that that is something that we should all be thankful and proud of. Once again, I thank the Scottish Government, in particular the minister for their support in moving the bill forward. Of course, his officials for all the work that they have carried out, but the officials in particular never seem to get the credit for it, so I would like to say thank you very much for that as well. With the support outlined above and any perceived obstacles to the implementation of the bill, it now seems resolved. That is what this Parliament is all about. It is a Parliament that serves the people, a Parliament for the people, in what better way to serve the people, to remove the obstacles from people being able to go out their door, go on the pavement, whether it be a push chair, whether it be a blind person or anyone with disabilities, to be able to have the freedom of movement that you and I and others in this chamber and outwith take for granted, even if it is just to go to the shops, if it is just to go to the park, if it is to take your kid out in a push chair. This is a great moment for this Parliament if it is to say that we support the general principles of the parking bill. I just want to give my thanks before I hear the contributions and I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the footway parking and double parking Scotland bill. Thanks very much. I now call on Kevin Stewart to speak on behalf of the local government and regeneration committee. Mr Stewart, up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and Sandra White has outlined that many members have tried to bring this legislation forward and congratulate her for her tenacity in that. The local government and regeneration committee welcomed the opportunity to consider the footway parking and double parking Scotland bill at stage 1. As members of the Parliament, particularly those of us representing urban areas, we are all too aware of the problems caused by irresponsible parking. That is double parking, parking across drop to curb crossing points and pavement parking. We have raised those issues with us on far too regular a basis. As a constituency member, I have received various complaints over the years. If our own inboxes and mailbags were not enough to convince us that this is an issue of real concern to a great many people, then the response to our call for evidence most certainly was. We received 63 written submissions, about half of which were from members of the public, and nearly 4,000 completed our online questionnaire. We also received nearly 500 comments on Facebook, and many of those responses weren't from people with disabilities, just showing how much this is a significant issue of concern at street level in many communities. I would also like to thank contributions from organisations such as Guide Dog Scotland and Living Street Scotland, who were also very helpful during the course of our inquiry. During our inquiry, we heard from a lot of folk, as I have already said, including Police Scotland and some local authorities, who are responsible for enforcing parking restrictions, who said that the existing legislative provision in this area is complex and confusing and that this bill would address the absence of clear rules. Based on the evidence that we took, we agreed that this bill would seem a signed basis for strengthening the law in this area. We felt that the fact that irresponsible parking is such a problem in some communities demonstrates in itself that the existing legislative provision is not working. In terms of the details of the bill, we highlighted a few concerns that were raised with us over the course of our inquiry. First, the scope of the definition of public roads in built-up areas of Scotland seems to exclude A and B roads. We have felt that irresponsible parking will be a problem in some A and B roads and recommend that the bill applies to those as well. Second, we were confused by the exception to allow parking next to a dropped curb outside residential premises with the permission of the occupier. We felt that the bill needed to be clearer about whether that relates to a drop curb at the end of a private driveway, as it would seem to be against the principle of the bill if it permits parking over a drop curb at a road crossing. We also considered that it would also be impossible to enforce. Third, the road haulage association raised concerns about the 20-minute window to allow parking next to a drop curb, or double parking, to make a delivery. We felt, however, that 20 minutes would be sufficient for most deliveries. Where a delivery would take longer, that could be anticipated in advance so that more time could be scheduled to allow a driver to find an alternative, more appropriate parking space. Particular concerns were raised around the issue of the implementation of the bill, especially the power for local authorities to establish exempt areas and the enforcement of the bill by Police Scotland or local authorities. Local authorities felt that the process of establishing exempt areas and the legal requirements to effectively signpost them would cost much more than the member in charge suggests. There were also concerns that the bill could not be enforced effectively within existing resources. We saw particular assurances that the bill would address the lack of consistency in how parking issues are dealt with across Scotland. We were therefore disappointed that Police Scotland and local authorities felt that the bill would do little to create a consistent approach across the country, and noted the minister's comment that further work was required to address the issue. Highlighting those points, however, we note the Scottish Government's commitment to support a similar bill in the next session and the minister's assurances that some aspects of the policy will be given further consideration. We would hope that local authorities would strike the right balance between on the one hand keeping footways accessible and on the other ensuring that there are sufficient parking opportunities in built-up areas. The bill should not just displace the problem from one urban area to another. The committee is pleased to have played a part in highlighting the aims of the bill and perhaps encouraging the Scottish and the UK Government to resolve the issue of legislative competence. I welcome the inclusion of the relevant powers in the Scotland bill. I again congratulate Sandra White for her tenaciousness in the issue. I will finish by congratulating Sandra White for her indomitable pursuance of the issue and by welcoming the Scottish Government's commitment to support a bill in the next parliamentary session when the relevant powers have been devolved. The local government and regeneration committee supports the general principles of the footway parking and double parking Scotland bill. Many thanks. I now call Minister Derek Mackay. Minister, seven minutes please. Before I give my opening statement to Parliament, I too wish to thank Sandra White for her opening speech and the commendable work that she has put into developing this bill in a complex subject area that we all acknowledge is very challenging. Kevin Stewart is right. It is her tenacious approach that has led to the bill coming this far and leading to a Government commitment to continue into the next term. Indeed, any incoming Government would now recognise that this is an issue in which there is a great deal of consensus in the Parliament and we would want to take it forward. Parking is an important issue for many people and is subject to a variety of acts and regulations. What the bill aims to do is to introduce clear prohibitions, whilst allowing for various qualifications and exceptions. Those aims align with our key strategic transport policy of improving quality, accessibility and affordability of transport. The Government is committed to promoting, supporting and advancing the rights of non-motorised users to ensure that our roads and footpaths are accessible for all. As part of the local government and regeneration committee's stage 1 inquiry, it received, as we have heard, nearly 4,000 responses to an online questionnaire and 63 submissions to its written evidence stage, highlighting just how much people are concerned about obstructive and irresponsible parking and enter Cameron Buchanan YouTube star who knew who knew. The committee concluded its stage 1 report, and it is content with general principles of the member's bill and we share their view. Having said that, I acknowledge that there are a number of issues that still require to be worked through. In particular, there is the issue of this Parliament's power to legislate on the matter. Following the bill's introduction, the Presiding Officer issued a statement stating that, in her view, the bill is out with the current legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That statement has raised out as to whether any act flowing from the bill could be fully within the legislative competence of the Parliament. Although there may be differing legal views on whether Parliament could legislate competently in this area, as the legislation may have given rise to financial penalties and potential criminality, it is absolutely essential that all doubt was removed. That is why the Scottish and the UK Governments have agreed the general approach to the amendment of the Scotland Bill that seeks to address the legislative competence issues raised by the Presiding Officer. The principle amendment was laid on 24 February, and we are working with the UK Government on further minor and technical amendments to deliver the appropriate competence to the Scottish Parliament. As has been said before, the Lord's is not our preference of where legislation is made in relation to Scotland, but it is welcome that we have made that progress. However, any agreed amendments will not be enforced before this Parliament is dissolved. In addition to the legislative competence issues, the committee heard evidence from local authorities, Police Scotland and businesses that have stressed the need for more detailed consideration on the implementation and enforcement of the bill's provisions. I also acknowledge the committee's concerns about the challenges that many local authorities face in managing Scotland's roads to ensure that they work effectively for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as motorists and business. Sandra White acknowledged those concerns in terms of the bill, and, as drafted, it does not cover all roads in Scotland. We have to look at some of the challenging priorities in terms of the residential nature of many of our streets, on town centres and not shunting the problem that has been described. That is why a careful consultation and fuller consideration will be required in some of the traffic management and planning issues going forward. The Minister for Giving Way speaks now as a constituency MSP rather than the convener of the committee. Will the minister give us an assurance that, in terms of formulae and future legislation, the A and B roads will be looked at? I know that there are not many trunk roads where parking is allowed, but that is certainly the case in Aberdeen, and there are very many problems in my constituency and that of Mark MacDonald. I believe that that is a fair point. For the Government to take forward this legislation, we will have to consider all the issues around enforceability, decriminalised parking, where different local authorities are at on the issue and the workability, and resolve some of the issues that were raised before, during and after the committee's consideration of the balance that exists between residential need and accessibility, in town centre principles, regeneration, economic opportunity and all that, but with the key principle in mind in tackling irresponsible and inconsiderate parking, which is the pardon the pun but the driving force behind the bill. It is for that reason that I can commit to this Government, if re-elected, in tending to bring forward legislation, suitable legislation in the next parliamentary session, which would begin with further consultation on all those matters to ensure that we get it right and ensure fairness in our active travel priorities, as well as our accessibility agenda. That legislation strikes the right balance and is fully workable so that it can deliver on the principles and the key objectives that successive parliaments have now tried to deliver. Although it may not be possible for the reasons given to legislate now before this Parliament concludes the fact that there seems to be so much consensus, it shows that we should take the issue forward. That is why this Government is committed to taking forward legislation to address the issues that have been raised by so many constituents and members from across the political spectrum, but not least Sandra White, who got it this far and is leading to a Government commitment. I, too, would like to start by thanking Sandra White for bringing the bill forward and for her work in highlighting the problem of inconsiderate parking. It is an issue that the Parliament has been debating for some time now, and I am pleased that Sandra White has been able to pick up in the work of our former parliamentary colleague, Rosswini MSP, and her ministerial colleague, Jo Fitzpatrick. It is quite clear that parking in the pavement and across dropped kerbs is irksome and inconvenient to many pedestrians, but potentially dangerous to others, including cyclists, blind or partially sighted people, children in prams and anyone using a wheelchair. Even for the nimble, footed and traffic aware, being forced off the pavement on to the road increases your risk of being hit by a car or a lorry. For many more people, the kerb itself is a barrier. Badly parked cars can turn a simple journey into an obstacle course. To my mind, that is about trying to change behaviour, encouraging us all to be a little less selfish and a little more thoughtful when behind the wheel of a car. However, it is also about rebalancing our relationship as a society with cars generally. Motor transport is vital to us economically, but we should recognise that it is also often simply about our personal convenience, and that needs to be weighed against safety, our environment and quality of life. In recent years, we have seen a move to lower speed limits in built-up areas, the introduction of car-free home zones and an attempt to make cars themselves more pedestrian friendly if I can use that term to describe the removal of sharp edges and prominent insignia from the front bonnet. The Safe Roots to School initiative from the early years of the Parliament was another helpful move in the right direction, but for those of us often doing the school run, things might have improved, but it is still, unfortunately, not that unusual to see double parking and pavement parking on the very pavements that prams and young kids are trying to negotiate on their way to school. Before we all get too self-righteous or sanctimonious about this, I would ask how many drivers here have not at one stage or other parked on a pavement. I am sure that we all justified it at the time. It was what everyone else in a narrow street was doing, or it was only for a minute or two. The point that I would make here is that we all have the potential to behave one way as a pedestrian and another as a driver, and there is a spectrum of selfishness or inconsiderate behaviour that we are all on and which we all need to address. I believe that this bill is not about punishing drivers, it is about addressing and changing that behaviour. Turning to the proposed legislation itself, although I think that there is broad agreement about the general approach outlined in the bill, there are also a number of concerns, and I thank the local government committee in particular for flagging them up when they are helpful consideration in stage 1. It would appear, for example, that although the police and local authorities already have some powers to tackle the problem of nuisance parking, several different laws can apply depending on the circumstances, and furthermore enforcement of those laws varies widely across the country. In many council areas, including in my authority of East Renfrewshire, parking enforcement has been decriminalised, so parking regulations are now the responsibility of local parking attendants rather than the police. I share the view of the committee that it might be helpful to take a more consistent approach and that a bill to clarify and consolidate the legislation would help to make it clearer to drivers exactly what is acceptable in the way of parking and what is not. Sticking with my local authority for a moment, the recent decriminalisation of parking has not been without its problems. Residents and shopkeepers have been up in arms about over vigorous ticketing, particularly outside local shops. Parking restrictions, which have never been enforced for decades, were suddenly zealously implemented, provoking a pretty strong reaction from those on the receiving end. Local people have now been consulted on what would be appropriate in the way of parking restrictions, and although I will not pretend that every concern has been addressed, it has at least begun to reflect parking need and local usage. The point that I would make here is that, in introducing any new powers or measures over parking, it is better to take people with you. I think that that emerges strongly from the evidence in the bill, and I thoroughly endorse the committee's recommendation that any enforcement is accompanied by consultation and dialogue with local communities. You made it clear that you do not believe that the footway parking and double parking bill would be within the competence of the Parliament. That is not an insurmountable problem. My former Westminster colleague Mark Llytharovitch introduced the responsible parking bill with exactly the same in mind of devolving those powers. It is unfortunate that, like the previous member's bill, that proposal fell in disillusion. However, it is my understanding, confirmed by the minister and by Sandra White, that Scottish ministers and the UK Government are now working together to devolve the necessary powers. It might not happen before the end of the programme in three weeks' time, but by agreeing to the general principles of the bill today, we are clearing the way for the introduction of a Government bill in the immediate future. I hope that Sandra White and the supporters of the bill take consolation that, by simply taking the bill to stage 1, they have helped to raise awareness of the problem of inconsiderate parking. They have tried to change that already just by debating it, and I am happy to show Labour support for the general principles of the bill. I thank Sandra White for her flattering remarks. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts come to mind, or maybe it should be Sandra White. The footway parking and double parking Scotland Bill obviously seeks to address the problem that we would all like to see resolved. As other members have mentioned, inconsiderate parking can not only be a nuisance but also a serious impediment to pedestrians who may have difficulty dealing with unexpected obstacles. I am glad that we can all agree on the need to tackle this behaviour, but I think that we must find a solution that is proportionate as well as effective. If this issue is to be settled in the next Parliament, I am pleased that it will allow the time to scrutinise the proposals in detail and ensure that the public is protected from its unintended consequences. The key, I think, is to protect vulnerable pedestrians without imposing undue burdens on law enforcement, not getting the way of perfectly reasonable or, indeed, necessary parking. As someone with mobility difficulties, I can speak from personal experience about how difficult it is when a pavement or a drop curve is blocked and you find yourself lift with this little option to take a longer route and move around onto the road. To call this an inconvenient is actually an understatement. For anyone such as myself, the situation like this can be very distressing and even dangerous as you try to negotiate between cars. In addition, parents with push shares will understandably not want to be forced to go around parked cars and onto dangerous roads between other parked vehicles, and that is also a key point. Furthermore, frequent parking on footways can cause wear and tear and eventually it manifests itself as uneven pavements to walk on. Such damage can represent real danger to pedestrians, especially the vulnerable ones, and the lots are lasting local authorities' need. I think that we can all agree that such inconsiderate parking must be tackled. I am glad that we have today's chance to discuss our approach at length. The question that remains is how best to go about it. I have always maintained the position that legislation must be targeted in proportion if it is to be effective and worthwhile. The same must be applied with this bill. Sadly, I think that the blanket ban that it proposes would fail the test of proportionality. Of course, I agree that such inconsiderate parking should not be tolerated, but there can be many instances when parking partly on a pavement can be the only available option that can be done without restructuring pedestrian access. I therefore do not think that it would be sensible to use the blanket measure, as we have already heard. I am sure that members will be aware of instances where parking with two wheels on a pavement has left sufficient room for pedestrians to pass, while it is also allowing traffic to flow freely on the road. That is a key point, because it would obviously be counterproductive to impose a ban only to see it result in constant road blockages. As long as such parking can be done in a way that allows more than enough room for all pedestrians to pass freely, I do not see the problem with it and certainly do not see the benefit from banning it. The emerging compromise that I would like to see would find a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. It is for this reason that I am glad that we have the chance, should we wish, to return to this issue in the next Parliament. This would give us all the opportunity to advocate a fresh approach that holds the principle of protecting vulnerable pedestrians, while avoiding the unintended consequences that I have been speaking of. I can see that such a temptation to push through a blanket van, because it is quite right to say that forcing vulnerable pedestrians to move around park cars on pavements or drop footways should not be tolerated. However, we would not be serving the public if we simply imposed a blanket van and left motorists as well as law enforcement officers to clear up the mess. The last point, I think, I will be picking up on later and I look forward to listening to the debate. We now move to the open debate. I call on George Adam to be followed by John Wills. I, too, welcome this bill and congratulate Sandra for bringing it forward. I maybe do not thank her so much for telling me how much of an internet sensation that Cameron Buchanan has now become since his YouTube appearances. One of the debates that we are having is another one of those debates. It is very personal to me because, as most of you know my wife, Stacey, has multiple sclerosis and mobility issues. Unless you live with it, like Cameron Buchanan or Stacey, you do not understand what it is like to be frustrated. It was quite funny to listen to Mr Buchanan talk about his frustration if there is an obstacle in his way and how polite he mentioned how he would get around it. I can assure you that my wife may be many things, but being polite in a situation like that would not be one of them. That is the issue. Having the decency for people to be able to get about their business, to be able to get from one end of the town to the other, that is what this debate is about. It is one of the things that I am reminded of often of my time when I was a member of Remshire Council and I became Derek Mackay. Ironically, I appointed me the Remshire Access Panel member for the council. I heard the issues from the access panels about difficulty. It was not just the problems that I knew. Let us not kid ourselves, although it is part of my life, it is Stacey that is dealing with it on a daily basis, it is not me. I could hear first hand the difficulties that people had. Those access panels are 47 throughout Scotland, of which they know what is best for the people in their areas. They know the difficulties in mobility and the problems. I would encourage more local authorities and others at this stage to work with them to try to find solutions to the problems, because they are willing to do that as volunteers to make sure that they can make that difference. I am reminded of one of the actual umbrella organisation for the access panels of the Scottish Disability Equality Forum, and its people have wonderful tastes, because they made me their national patron. One of the things that they mentioned was what Ken Macintosh was talking about, was that it is not so much of hitting someone with a big stick with regard to the issue, it is about education. It is actually the people who believe that they could help educate drivers in this situation, so that they knew that it was not just that. The lack of thought that that driver has for those 10 minutes could be the difference between that person making a doctor's appointment, a hospital appointment or something to do with their own business and what they are doing in work. Those are the things that can make the difference. I can understand why people become so frustrated in that situation. A number of years ago, I attended Renfrewshire access panels open day. One of the things that they did was give them an example of what it is like to be a disabled person. I already knew from Stacey's experience, so they then promised to seal your lost and went in a wheelchair and access to Renfrewshire house to see the council building what it was like. I used a pair of visually impaired spectacles. The funny thing was that, when I got into Renfrewshire house, I nearly battered my head off of one of the TV screens because Renfrewshire council had not thought that someone with a visual impairment would be six foot three. That is the lack of thought when it comes to those things that are one of the problems that we have when we are dealing with many of those issues. I would say that we have to make sure that the Scottish Disability Equality Forum has to be a statutory body in the planning of all future planning processes, but I would also say that we need to work with those groups.  I would say that we need to encourage the bill. We need to make sure that we put that forward because we would then be putting a message out there to people in Scotland that we are trying to help them, but it is not about a blunt instrument, it is about making sure that we can educate drivers and ensure that we give everybody—because this is a little debate about equality—the right of individuals to be able to get from one end of our communities and towns to the other. That is why I am backing Sandra White in this debate, and I wish her all the best because I can see the difference that it can make to people's lives. I congratulate Sandra White for her tenacity in bringing this bill forward. Despite all the obstacles that we have put in her way, including the issue of the legal competence, Sandra White decided to persevere with this, and I am glad that she has done it. As a member of the local government and regeneration committee, we considered the bill, and we took evidence, and some of that evidence was very enlightening in relation to what measures had been put in place by some local authorities to try to address the issue, particularly South Lanarkshire Council came up with an innovative plan in relation to tackling the issue of on-street parking. However, as others have said in this debate, on-street parking is a blight. One moment, Mr Wilson. Minister, if you would turn to the front and not turn your back on the chair, that would be extremely courteous. Mr Wilson, continue. As a blight on many communities throughout Scotland, the issue for those communities is when people do park on the pavements or obstruct pavements, how they deal with that. Some of the evidence that we heard from Police Scotland was very interesting, where they indicated that someone could be parked on a pavement, but the police would not take any action against the individual because they would have to determine who was driving the vehicle at the time that the car was parked. So there is an issue about the legislation that is currently there and how that legislation is used. Why hope that the bill is taking forward in the next session of Parliament can do is clear up the legislative landscape so that we actually get something that is clear, definitive, and people and communities can apply the legislation or ask the legislation to be applied. The other thing that came up from Police Scotland is that, while Police Scotland welcomed the bill, it stated in its submission that the enforcement of parking offences by Police Scotland would be a low priority, either conducted alongside daily business or during bespoke operations to address significant problems. During oral evidence to the committee, Police Scotland stated that it did not anticipate police officers issuing a large number of parking tickets as a result of the bill, but rather that the powers would be used to address specific community concerns and during campaigns. That is a concern to me, Presiding Officer, because we need to be clear if we introduce legislation and we need to be clear how that legislation is going to be applied and it has to be applied evenly. It is one of the issues that came up during the discussions and is contained within the report. It has to seem to be evenly applied throughout Scotland where there are issues. Clearly, in terms of what we have heard from other speakers today, the organisations that came forward and gave evidence, such as Guide Dogs Scotland and Living Streets Scotland, clearly identified the problems that many people have. We ended up discussing the dropped kerb issue. I know for a fact that some local authorities and doing streetscaping in town centres are now introducing drop kerbs for those who have midability and wheelchair access users. We need to get clarification in future legislation about where we are talking about drop kerbs and whether or not the enforcement of drop kerbs is more of a concern for where streetscaping has taken place to allow accessibility and free movement throughout town centres and other areas. Clearly, the work that Sandra White has done along with others in bringing the bill forward and getting to the stage that she has clearly shows that there is concern out there that we need to address those issues. I look forward to the next Scottish Government to bringing forward the appropriate legislation that we can all work towards and go behind to ensure that the Scottish people, as well as those most in need of support, are making sure that the double parking issue is dealt with and that we get those offenders who continually park on pavements that are dealt with in an appropriate manner. Thank you, Mr Olson. I now call on Cameron Buchanan to wind up four minutes, Mr Buchanan. So soon, Presiding Officer, so soon. It has been useful to hear colleagues' views on those important issues as we decide how to take it forward. Again, as we have heard, I think that we can all agree on the need to tackle such inconsiderate behaviour. It is only right that we protect these vulnerable pedestrians and ensure that access to public footpaths is not impeded in any way. However, I think that it would be useful to bear in mind that helping pedestrians does not have to involve impeding motorists. After all, it is likely that a majority of drivers are considered in their parking and share the views expressed today about footway and double parking. With this likely to remain an issue for the next panel, we should use the chance to redefine our approach to one that is proportionate and crucially targeted only at the genuinely inconsiderate and unnecessary parking. I have already touched on situations in which footway parking can occur that is both necessary to allow traffic flow and harmless to pedestrians as long as sufficient room is left to pass. I think that that is crucial. Obviously, it is preferable to avoid this sort of parking where possible, but I think that we have to recognise the reality that drivers are frequently left with no other option, where this is the case, certainly. Dennis Roberts. Mr Buchanan, just today, I was walking along and a car impeded the whole pavement. I had no option but to go on to the road. There was no space against the wall. The whole car took up the whole pavement and I was walking into on-going traffic. In fact, it took me 10 minutes because I had to wait for assistance because the guide dog refused to go on to the oncoming traffic. Henry Cannan. I thank the member for that intervention. It is very pertinent indeed and I too have had the similar problem, but not perhaps in the way of going right onto the pavement. I find it very difficult sometimes. I get very nervous, as you would know, when I have to go out onto the street in order to avoid parked cars. Obviously, it is preferable to avoid this sort of thing. I think that we have to recognise the unintended consequences, which would do well to consider the demands that a blanket ban would place on traffic and law enforcement officers. I think that we can agree that traffic wardens and the police have enough on their hands already, and neither they nor the public would welcome a massive increase in their duties. Issuing penalties to motorists who have parked without impeding pedestrians, yet still fall foul of a blanket ban, I think would detract from officers' priorities, as well as simply being unfair, as Ken McIntosh rather speculated on. I would also like to emphasise that the potential to extract extra revenue from the public through parking fines is a negative, not a positive, when applied to drivers that had no choice and do not even embed pedestrians. The point is that we should have any chance to reform the approach that is set out by the bill so that we are careful not to impose counterproductive or unfair burdens as a side effect. Of course, we need to tackle the scourge of grossly inconsiderate parking, but let us make sure that we do not create new problems in its place. Accordingly, I would like to reiterate our support for the principle of vulnerable pedestrians, and the use of pavements should not be blocked in any way by inconsiderate parking. It is only right that we ensure fair access to footways and do not tolerate the denial of free access by a careless minority. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that any legislation passed by this Parliament is proportionate in that it accurately targets the source of the issue. Should we have a chance to look at this in our approach again, I hope that we will use it carefully to craft a solution that protects the vulnerable pedestrians and the majority of motorists who are considerate parkers. I wish to congratulate to Sandra White for persevering with his important issue to protect vulnerable pedestrians. The Labour group is supportive of the general principles of the bill, and when you speak to anyone who lives in a built-up area about motor vehicles parking on pavements, most folk will have an opinion and an experience. I remember when my boys were small, my eldest was two and a half when I had twins, and I often had to navigate a double buggy with a toddler standing on a buggy board around cars half parked on the pavement, half on the road. There were times when I had to bump off the pavement onto the road with the toddler hanging on and then bump back up again, so I went back onto the road and it was quite dangerous. I found it difficult, and that was 16 years ago when I was fitter and had much better vision, so I could empathise with people who have visual impairment or physical disability, older people and often children who just cannot see the line of sight is blocked by vehicles parking on the pavement or double parking. Pavement parking causes an obstruction to pedestrians and particularly for, as I said, children, people who are blind and partially sighted, wheelchair and mobility scooter users and those with pooch chairs and prams. As it has been already said, it is an offence to drive on to the pavement, whether with the intention to park or not, and there have long been concerns about the extent to which this is enforced. Constituents have raised with me concerns about Police Scotland not attending incidents of pavement parking, which pedestrians deemed to be as dangerous. However, as we have heard, Police Scotland does not seem to make it a priority, even if it is causing a significant obstruction. Police Scotland State did in its consultation document in October 2013 that, due to financial savings required by Police Scotland, it noted that police parking enforcement was not a priority area. That resulted in the following headline in local paper, The Courier. Council fears driver anarchy as Police Scotland withdraws from parking enforcement. Thus laws are only as good as they are enforcement. The bill's provisions would be enforced by Police Scotland, where parking is criminalised and traffic wardens in areas that are decriminalised parking enforcement, such as in Dundee, Aberdeen, Fife and Edinburgh. Fife Council noted concerns that were felt by many local authorities that the bill would raise expectations that traffic wardens would widen their beats to cover more areas. Without additional resources, local authorities would be unable to do that, especially given the unprecedented cuts to local government from the Scottish Government. It is important to ask why drivers park in this way. For a few, it is scotlessness, but for many it is due to the physical constraints of the bill environment. Many of our housing schemes and times when they were built and planned for, they never expected that level of car ownership and car use. In addition to going forward with this bill, we ought to acknowledge the constraints and perhaps look for innovative ideas on how to resolve the matter and to talk more with time planners and transport planners. If you could go to 552, I would appreciate that greatly. I think that we have had a number of useful briefings for this afternoon's debate in terms of what is proposed. I urge Cameron Buchanan, who seems to be the only voice departing from the consensus to think again with your wide experience of the issue and understanding through the committee investigation. It is quite significant to support the bill at stage 1, because that is about the principle. Of course, if there was time and the legislative opportunity through stage 2 and stage 3 to change it, as the member would request to refine it to your satisfaction, it would be important if the whole Parliament was to progress in stage 1 around the principles to take forward action in the area of responsible parking. Largely, that can be about, as all members have hinted, about common sense. Essentially, in just thinking about the needs of everyone else and other people as well as individual needs. Sandra White has made that point repeatedly in terms of the need for the bill. Even when there was doubt about legislative competence, encouraging UK Government and Scottish Government to work together, it is unfortunate that, even with the necessary legislative change to remove all doubt, it will not be in time to be able to legislate in the Scottish Parliament now that the consensus is here. However, I suppose that that gives us the time to get proposed legislation refined to the point of satisfaction for everyone, and then maybe even the Conservatives can come on board with any potential legislation. I am glad that that invited an intervention. I have that vicious personal attack, what more can I say. We do support the bill, but I was really more against the blanket part of it and the fact that it needs a bit of tinkering and changing around, I think, but we support the bill. I am delighted to hear it, Mr Buchanan. I was given the impression that you would not be supporting the bill.  Kevin Stewart has covered the issues of definition, as I would expect from the committee, and George Adam has covered the personal experience of supporting his wife in a wheelchair and the frustration that comes along from other people assuming that they have that right of way. John Wilson is right in the purpose here of clarity and definition. We have to get it right, so it is easily understood what is enforceable and the public knows where they can and where they should and shouldn't park. There is an issue about consistency, definition and clarity, but can Macintosh be right about local opinion and consultation in taking people with him in terms of what works at the most local level? That will be about localism, but giving that clarity that is required and Leslie Brennan very helpfully points out one of the anomalies of which there are many in terms of complex legislation. It is illegal to drive on the footway, but some would say that it is okay and competent to park on the footway. How do you get there if it was not to drive on to the footway? The legislative tightening up and refinement will make the difference, and that is why the Government has committed to embark on that consultation, to ensure that we can cover as many of the issues that have been raised as possible. Ken Macintosh also covered on planning and policy and the cultural aspects of the policy, and that is absolutely right as we look at the completeness, the balancing act between local need in terms of provision for parking and absolutely accessibility. I should say, as transport minister, with a clear focus on road safety, I am concerned about the statistics around more vulnerable road users, that accessibility and safety absolutely has to be paramount whilst we have those competing priorities in the balancing act. I make sure of common sense and enforceability, in terms of enforceability. I think that it would be more effective, the evidence is, that it is more effective where there is decriminalised parking and DPE has been introduced in a number of local authorities, including Aberdeen, Argyll and Bute, Dundee, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Remshire, Edinburgh, Fife, Glasgow, Inverclyde, Perthync, Ross, Remfreshire, South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire. A number of other councils are working towards going through the necessary legislation towards decriminalised parking enforcement, and that leaves a number who would have to move towards it to reach that consistency that many members have raised. I will gratefully take an intervention from Kevin Stewart. Mr Buchanan, in his earlier speechifying, talked about an added burden for wardens and the police. However, in Aberdeen, where parking is decriminalised, I think that it is extremely frustrating for the city wardens who work in neighbourhoods where double park and footway parking takes place, so that there is nothing that they can do about it. We can ensure that we get those folk the powers sooner rather than later, so that they can help the neighbourhoods that they are working in. In answer to Kevin Stewart, it will give those officers a sense of empowerment and further clarity on what is enforceable. It will also assist on the cultural understanding as well in that improvement of behaviour if we get it right on education and awareness could lead to less enforcement as people understand what is acceptable and not acceptable, and there are issues around signage and the understanding of the streets that could be affected here. With the right implementation, that is why it is important to get the legislation right. That will help with the workability and the practical nature of how it is enforced. However, there is no doubt that, if there is one issue since the creation of this Parliament that has been on-going and has frustrated people as to why we could not legislate on the matter, then it must be this issue that seems so simple, complex because of the legislation, but simple in its objective about more responsible parking and tackling irresponsible parking. As transport minister, I have launched a number of initiatives to improve road safety, very shortly and imminently. They will launch in town slow down because of the impact that there is in built-up areas in terms of speed of traffic. More careful driving, more considered approach from drivers will make a difference in terms of road safety and reviewing the road safety framework. Rolling out 20mph zones is to be encouraged as well as other road safety campaigns, but I have no doubt that, if we show that more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians have that sense of priority and accessibility, it will make a difference for their safety and just general better common sense approach in local neighbourhoods. For all those reasons, the Government supports Sandra White's bill and has committed to in the event that it cannot progress because of timing, having resolved the necessary legislative issues that the Government has committed to legislate in the next term, Presiding Officer. Therefore, the Government supports the bill at stage 1. Thank you minister. I now call on Sandra White to wind up the debate, Ms White, until 6pm please. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. I think that this has been an excellent debate, a very important debate and also a very measured and thoughtful debate. Everyone has, I think, touched in the areas where I would not say that they are expertise, but certainly some expertise and the fact that they have experienced it in many of the members here, Dennis Robertson and Cameron McCannons will have experienced it first hand. That experience came to the fore in their contributions. I thank all the MSPs from all parties for their contribution. I sincerely thank the minister for his pledge that the next Scottish Government, if he happens to be there, which I know he will be, will take on board, perhaps not transport minister, but certainly I thank him very much for his contribution and his pledge that the Scottish Government next elected will take this bill on board. I think that it is fantastic that the Government has said that it will take it on board after not just my work, but obviously, as I said previously, Ross Finlay, Dolfitt's party and the many, many contributions and groups out there who have been pushing this as well. I thank all of them for the work that they have done to help me to push this forward just now. I realise that it was a lot of effort to get some of the power devolved to ensure that this Parliament in the future will be able to legislate on this issue. I ask her whether she will continue to ensure that colleagues elsewhere make sure that that power is devolved so that we can finally deal with this as a Parliament once and for all. That is a very important issue to raise. As I said in my opening remarks, there were other people in other places such as Westminster in the Scottish Office, Transport Scotland Ministers, myself and others who met and worked through this. I can assure not just Kevin Stewart but the Parliament that, if it slips one tiny wee bit, I will certainly be there either on the phone or at their office to ensure that we do have the powers in this Parliament. From the outset, I believe that we did have the competency, as I said before, Presiding Officer, but your good self and advice that you took said that we didn't have the competency, even though we had lawyers who said that we did, but that is in the past and we are where we are now, Presiding Officer. I want to come to substantive part, which has been raised. As I said, I am grateful for all the MSP from all the parties who will support this tonight and for their contributions. However, there were certainly issues in the bill that were raised in regards to enforcement and what we could do about it. I certainly acknowledge that. There are certain parts of the bill. I know that it is a complicated bill and I acknowledge that as well. I was welcomed by the contributions from Kevin Stewart and others in the issues that they raised. We talked about drop kerbs. At one point, during evidence-taking, they were not necessarily called drop kerbs. They were called a crossing point, I think that John Wilson had mentioned that. The fact is that, with the streetscapes and cityscapes, we are looking at putting dropping points, which are slightly different to drop kerbs, in areas where it means that, if someone is in a wheelchair or is disabled, there is a dropping point for them to cross the road. Rather than going on the road, they have nowhere to get on the pavement on the other side. That is what I would take to be crossing points. That is something that is very important to raise. There was also the issue of loading and delivery. Certainly, the 20 minutes is a statute just now. Some people and some MSPs and some authorities thought that 20 minutes was absolutely fine. Others thought that it was absolutely too much time. If I could give you an example of one that I passed on Sunday up near the Botanic Gardens in my constituency, the van drove up on to the pavement right outside a bus stop. It stayed there for about three hours. It was not delivering anything, and I do not know what it was doing, but anybody trying to get along that road is Dennis Robertson, as we mentioned earlier, and Cameron MacCannan. If you had been walking along that road, there was no way that you could not get off that pavement. If you had come off the bus and you happened to have a stick or a wheelchair or whatever it may be, you could not even get away from that bus stop. That is what they call inconsiderate drivers. Those things have all got to be looked at, and I recognise that, and I welcome that as well. One moment, Ms White. Can I ask those who are just coming into the chamber to stop having your conversations brought into the chamber? Do you, Ms White, the courtesy of listening to her, Ms White? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The first time I've been told to someone to listen to me, I usually just shout if they don't, but I'm sure they will listen to me in that aspect. A number of other issues were raised, and I want to touch on the one that Ken Macintosh and others raised as well in regard to education. I have said from the very, very beginning of this bill that I did not and did not think, did not want this to be a punitive bill. I thought it should be an educational bill, but I've got to educate the people. I don't think that all drivers are bad drivers, but like everyone else, some maybe need more education than others need, and I think that we should concentrate on an educational aspect of the bill. Another area that I want to mention as well as George had raised this particular Jordan Adams is about the disability forums and the access panels. I think that it's really important that they have to be involved. I did mention in my contribution to the committee that they should be on a statutory basis. I think that they have the experience to know what's happening, and they should be put forward in that aspect on a statutory basis to give advice. Of course, local communities must be involved also. They must be consulted and involved. As it has happened just now in an RPZ, if you're talking about parking issues in local communities, it's consulted by its legislation that local councils must consult with local communities. I'd imagine that that would be something that would need to be written into the bill as well. We talk about people who are disabled with young kids. There's a huge, bigger issue in that particular aspect. Social isolation is a huge issue, and one in which we in this Parliament take very seriously, in fact, equal opportunities committee, which I'm a member of. We did an inquiry into that. The subsequent feedback that we got on the media coverage that it attracted shows that people are suffering from social isolation. How more isolating can it be that you cannot even get out your own front door, your own house simply because someone is parked on the pavement? As I said previously, you may want to go to the shops, but if every time you try to get out and you don't know if you're going to be able to get back, that is worrying, and that causes people not to get out of their houses, and that is social isolation. I would ask the Parliament, if we are in consensus, that we support the bill's principles at stage 1 tonight. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms White. That concludes the debate on the Foodway Parking and Double Parking Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 15771. In the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting a revision to the business programme for Thursday, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 15771. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 15771 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We now move to decision time. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 15760, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on work wages and wellbeing in the Scottish Labour market, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that amendment 15758.2, in the name of Neil Findlay, which seeks to amend motion 15758 in the name of Alex Neil on social security, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15758.2, in the name of Neil Findlay, is as follows. Yes, 33. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that amendment 15758.1, in the name of John Lamont, which seeks to amend motion 15758 in the name of Alex Neil on social security, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15758.1, in the name of John Lamont, is as follows. Yes, 14. No, 98. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion 15758, in the name of Alex Neil, on social security, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15758, in the name of Alex Neil, is as follows. Yes, 98. No, 0. There were 14 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion 15759, in the name of Sandra White, on the footway parking and double parking Scotland bill, would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.


The years so the fuel loads are going to be a bit higher than if we get them every year. If we can help it, we can relate to Antwerp and just avoid it. Good day, I'm Anthony Watt, Vegetation Management for the Country Fire Authority. I'm here in Dunkill to tell you about how to help the CFA to better understand the risk of grass and fire. Understanding how fires burn is important to help us manage the risk throughout the state. Let's go. This is a prescribed burn to reduce fuel loads. The reason why we do it is to help stop a fast running grass fire. It's somewhere that enables us to slow it down, hinder it and stop. When it comes to understanding fire behaviour, we need to know a number of things about the state of grass. It's very important that we get this right and the CFA has a project to help everyone understand grass fire risk across all regions of the state. A network of volunteer observers sends in data to help make a map of grass and curing. In other words, how dry the grass is. So with my other observers throughout the state, the data that we input into this curing map goes to help municipalities to determine when fire restrictions should come in. It goes to assist those pie charts you see in the towns where the indicator should be on the pie chart. And it can assist and help the chief officer when he's talking about declaring a day of total fire burn. The grassland curing map also helps us decide how many people to put on standby. It's easy to become a volunteer grassland curing observer and it only takes a few moments to do.  You find an area near your house that's not too green, not too dry and if possible that doesn't have any trees. Then you write down a few numbers on your grassland curing field cap, including the height of the grass, how dry it looks compared to some photos and how much grass there is. So if you want to become a volunteer grassland curing observer just call or email the project to register your interest. The data you send in helps us manage fuel loads throughout the state which in turns helps us to protect lives, property and the environment.


فشرف بالاشتغالي بالعلم ولا تبغي به ما عشت يا دادا دالا وياله من شراف عظيمي but those are the six types that he comes in إن شاء الله تعالى مو details will come in the other كتب that we're going to go through إن شاء الله تعالى مو details will come there now we're going to move on to the next one which is we know what ismofrad is right we don't know what ismofrad is right we don't know what ismofrad is right we do right brothers we also know a jammu taksiris I'm asking you brothers question we do good now إن شاء الله تعالى we're going to move on to a jammu المؤلّث السالم what is jammu المؤلّث السالم جمع المؤلّث السالم again go to the shalha محمد وحيديل عبد الحميد he says ما دلّ على أكثر من إثنتيني it is whatever shows you whatever shows you more than two females بزيادة ألف وطائن في أخيره with a what with a what ألف وطائن at the end that's how it is when you look at some of the scholars are you with me they actually don't like calling a jammu المؤلّث السالم and they disagree with that usage the reason is because it is jammu it is مؤلّث but it's not salim it's not salim why? salim means that the word from its original letter when it came from the singular and when it turns to the jammu it doesn't get tampered with does that make sense for example we have the word بنت we have the word bint we have the word bint صح what do we have? we have the word bint bint means what? one go جمع المؤلّث السالم if we use that term what we mean is that all that's going to happen to the word is that ألف وطائن is going to be added to it and this is not going to be tampered with so it's going to be touched جمع المؤلّث السالم is salim which we're going to see later the plural masculine word is salim it's safe from any alteration the word مسلم all you do is add a word known at the end مسلم look at it مسلمونة it doesn't change the حركة doesn't change the شكل doesn't change look at what happens here بنت how do you make it جمع المؤلّث السالم بنت so you take the cataract from it the شكل goes again and it becomes بنت and what happens here what happened to this cat it's gone and so what happens this word comes and what does it do all together does that make sense I'm going to make it sense yeah so the word is it is it سالم from تغير so it's not good to call it جمع المؤلّث السالم is it good to call it جمع المؤلّث السالم the scholars they call it instead of calling it جمع المؤلّث السالم they call it جمع المؤلّث المزيدة المزيدة بألف وطا that's what they say أما ما جميع بألف وطا in مزيدة to be more precise ما جميع بألف وطا in وطا in مزيدة do you guys have the bottom of the other kitab it won't say at the bottom the حقق of the bottom for you guys what did ya does it say الأول أن يقال الجمع اللذي يخوطي بألف وطا in مزيدة تيني does it say that ya does that make sense pay attention to that so it's not good to call it that have you all understood that that's what جمع المؤلّث السالم is we're now going to swiftly swiftly we're going to move on to what الفعل المضارع الذي لم يتصل بأخيره شيء what does it mean فعل المضارع الذي لم يتصل بأخيره شيء it's the elif that is saved is the فعل المضارع we all know what فعل المضارع is right we're going to study in more details إن شاء الله وتعالى the فعل المضارع so it says that الفعل المضارع let's break the term let's break the term up إن شاء الله وتعالى what does it say الفعل المضارع right we all know فعل المضارع صح فعل المضارع is anything that starts with the زوائد الأربعة these four letters go before it elif نون ya and what which we bring together which is called anator right so the وضرابة ضرابة what do you do ضرابة if you put elif before it or a نون before it or a ya before it or a ta before it it becomes a فعل مضارع it becomes a present verb because these four letters are the زوائد الأربعة don't worry it's going to come to us in more details the book is going to go through it but فعل المضارع for what you need to know now is a present verb what is it it's a present verb so it goes فعل المضارع what does it mean الذي لم يتصل بأخيره شيء الذي لم يتصل بأخيره شيء what does it mean okay it means the word يضربو يضربو because I put the word the ya from here right so it's a فعل المضارع now صح it's a فعل المضارع right is يضربو a فعل المضارع الذي لم يتصل بأخيره شيء yes it is why because it's saved from three things entering it and it's called ALEF ALEF of the eighth nine and ya المؤنتة المخافمة so if it becomes يضربونا or يضرباني or تضربونا what happens it's no longer referred to as what is the verb الذي لم يتصل بأخيره شيء does that make sense so as long as there's no ALEF known at the end or وواو النون at the ending or ياء النون at the ending does that make sense to you brothers and sisters it has to be saved from that الشارح إن شاء الله تعالى he sorry the author the author of the كتاب الجلمية he says it himself he says الذي لم يتصل به ALEF of the eighth nine أو وواو جمعته أو ياء محاطمة does that make sense it has to be saved from these three what are the three things that it has to be saved from it has to be saved from number one ALEF of the ninth has to be saved from what ALEF of the ninth أو وواو جمعته or it has to be saved from what وواو جمعته we mentioned it or it has to be saved from what أو ياء محاطمة once it's saved once it's saved from any of those three then what does it become it becomes فعل المضارع الذي لم يتصل بأخير شيء also it has to be saved from something else it also has to be saved from another thing which is نور التوكيد خفيفة أو ثقيلة it can't be connected to a نور التوكيد which is whether it is خفيفة or whether it is تقيلة it doesn't matter نور نور التوكيد so for example القول هو تعالى سلمة الله لا يسجننأ ولا يكونن من الصغرين لا يسجننأ that's even worse than وواو النور ألف النور أو ياء النور connect into it you know why it's worse because now it's actually left the role of إعراب it's now become مب مبنى it's no longer and that's the two times when the فعل مبنى becomes what because it's مبنى the principle is فعل مبنى is what the present verb the principle is that it's what معراب the time that it becomes مبنى is what if نور التوكيد enters it أو نور نسوة أو نور نسوة والوالدات يرضعنأ what you're doing is مبنى صح is مبنى are we all together مبنى على استقون am I making sense now I am very good so what needs to be saved from it is that it can't be these three can't connected فعل مضارع الذي لم يتصل بآخره شيء is meant by that وواو النور ألف النور ياء النور cannot connected good also نور التوكيد أو نور نسوة and I told you لا يسجننأ for example والوالدات يرضعنأ أو لاده نحوليني كامليني لما أراد أن يتم الرضاع والوالدات يرضعنأ the word you're رضعنأ is left the room of إعراب it's no longer مبنى so if it's saved from all of those this one and this one that's what's meant by فعل مضارع الذي لم يتصل بآخره شيء it has to come like this يضربوا يقتلوا يسمعوا if it becomes يسمعوا لا it's not فعل مضارع الذي لم يتصل بآخره شيء we all together no it's a whole different situation where in معرفة عالمتي العراب that's a chapter that we're doing we're doing بابو معرفة عالمات العراب we're not studying مبنى so we won't we won't entertain the idea of what's مبنى how do you go just now it won't be it will follow what were the other words that are مبنى the فعل أمر and the فعل ماضي so the فعل مضارع that has it goes with its brothers the فعل ماضي and it goes with فعل مضارع فعل ماضي and the حروف that's where it goes down that goes down that road now what do you understand okay شزاك الله خير سبحانه و سبحانه و سبحانه و سبحانه و سبحانه brothers and sisters if you don't understand I don't understand study a talk to yourself I'm more than happy too to repeat basically what the author is saying is when he says مضارع الذي لم يتصل بآخره شيء is the فعل in simple terms is whatever فعل that doesn't have any woe unknown at the end elephant known and what I'm just saying known just because it's the majority of the times but I'm not being precise by saying known really what you need to look at is woe and elephant so for example يضربونا يضربونا okay question the word يضربونا is it فعل مضارع الذي لم يتصل بآخره شيء is it يضربونا is it فعل مضارع الذي لم يتصل بآخره شيء it's not why is it not because what does it have at the ending it was meant to be what يضربو okay that's what we're talking about any word if you find woe unknown at the end or if you add if you find that elephant known or if you find yeah unknown if it becomes يضرباني or تضرباني it can't be يضربينة I have to change it to that because it's what يا المؤنة المخاطبة does that make sense am I making sense now that's what shouldn't happen and there's another thing that shouldn't connect to it after these three there's another thing that the author wants is that نونة توكيدة نونة نسوة so these three and also نونة توكيدة and نونة نسوة they also shouldn't connect to the ending نونة توكيدة is the known that has a shed on it are we together or the known of emphasis and نونة نسوة is the known that indicates that this is women okay and we will study more about what's known to توكيدة and what's known to نسوة they will come to us because it's the فعل مضارع نونة توكيدة نونة نسوة connects to what does it become and this is the only two times when it becomes مبني right the two times when the فعل مضارع is مبني is when when نونة توكيدة نونة نسوة connect to it that's just a side point that you need to realize in other words in simple terms simple terms فعل المضارع الذي لم يتصل بأخيري شيء is as long as it's not until it'll come back or as long as it's not أفعاله come back does that make sense but then you would say what is أفعاله come back so I just does that make sense that's all it really is as long as it's not أفعاله come back because what we just wrote right now يضربونة تضربونة يضرباني تضربينة what is that أفعاله come back ففعل المضارع الذي لم يتصل بأخيري شيء is as long as it's not أفعاله come back you've just learned أفعاله come back أفعاله come back is the opposite أفعال المضارع الذي لم يتصل is the one known ألف النون and yeah النون does that make sense the grammarians the Nuhad the grammarians they say that it shouldn't be called أفعال الخمسة this is a mistake it's a mistake you know why because if you say أفعال الخمسة people would think you're trying to say that these are only five five verbs when really these five which is يفعلون يفعلاني يفعلاني تفعلاني يفعلون تفعلون تفعلين they are symbols of every verb that you can use it for it's a representative of all the other verbs they're not only these five are we together whereas أسماء الخمسة is أبوك أخوك أحموك أفوك ذو ماليم need five are we all together that's a side point where we don't want to go into that right now it's not our our field of discussion am I making sense no so what it should be called correctly is أمثلة الخمسة it's better to call it أمثلة الخمسة instead of calling it أفعل الخمسة okay are we all are we all in the same page look brothers and sisters when you're studying grammar don't ever expect yourself to understand it the first time straight away fully shouldn't be it's not a case it's not meant to be it's meant to be you go over that lesson again and again and you have more questions and you understand and you learn if you try to understand it like somebody who's been studying it for so many years then are you going I don't know are we all together somebody's been doing it for so many years you've just started learning the grammar now you're going to be feel a bit okay it's hard for me that's what it is everything for the first time it's a bit tricky until you get the hang of it صاح امران how many times do you do a Jeremy with me six times I don't know do you find it now easy flows this part flows okay the last part is problematic for you but are we all together does that make sense six times and he still thinks the last part of the book is a bit complicated for him are we all together okay now we're going to go into the other type which is جامل مدقر سالن what does جامل مدقر سالن what does جامل مدقر سالن mean جامل مدقر سالن is اسم دل على أكثر من إثنيني it is a now that shows more than two masculine more than two masculine or two male more than it بزيادة في آخره with the additional adding on the ending صالح للتجرد عن هذه زيادة صالح للتجرد what does it mean can anyone guess no what it means is that the word مسلمونة مسلمونة it is befitting it can be possible to strip off the well and the known the one on the known of the word and it will still stand appropriately it's like a word that exists it will still be a word مسلم مسلمونة if you take the well and the known off it again it will still stand appropriately it's like a word that exists that if you take the well and the known off it again what does it come back to again so it is صالح it is appropriate للتجرد عن هذه زيادة to strip off this so in other words when you strip it off if it has no meaning it's like a word that doesn't exist then it becomes ملحق that's what ملحق is this is that point that the صالح للتجرد is what distinguishes it from ملحق what's the word what's the word مسلم مسلم مسلم this is also صالح للتجرد when you put together the word has it's مسلم مسلم مسلم what do you say now together all of those when you want to talk to all of them the same time what do you say ميو ميو مسلم مسلمة I said مسلم مسلمة مسلم مسلم what do you say مسلمونة that's what you say right this is صالح للتجرد okay can I take the word and use the same the same like with it can I do out of another word like it so can I say جاء المسلمون الصالحونة can I say that okay so I'm using with another with another with another وعط في متلي the likes of it you can do out of with it you can say and are you am I making sense good very good very good does everyone know do you all know what does anyone does anyone know and the زيادة is and نون sorry وعنن sorry وعنن وعنن أنا يا النون زيادة that adds on to the جنب القرسال so it's مسلمونة or مينة مسلمونة or مسلمونة what's the difference between مسلمونة and what's the difference between مسلمينة the difference is مسلمونة إتحالة الرفع مسلمينة إتحالة نصبي والجرد نصبي والخفضي I will come to that don't confuse yourself right now good now we're gonna go into these five sisters he goes أسماء الخمسة as for the أسماء الخمسة but is it five or is it six or is it seven it's six why did he mention here five for you because you're a baby you're a baby you're only told what you need now and there's another reason why he didn't mention this one there's another reason why he never mentioned it the other reason we're gonna study it المتميمة الأجومية but it's six it's six he left it deliberately he says أما الأسماء الخمسة فهي هذه الألفاض المحصورة التي عدها المؤلف وهي أموكة وأخوكة وحموكة أما وحموكي وفوكة وذوباني the word حموكي is used for the woman's family are you with me أموكة is your father أخوك is your brother حموكة is what your in-law the girl is used for the woman the woman in-laws are we the man's family so that's why when we say حموكي we say we never say حموكة wronged say حموكة yeah غالب you hear me حموكي فوكة means what فوك is your mouth ذو مالد we don't like wealth we don't connect people to wealth so we say ذو علم when we connect people to knowledge importance of knowledge صح so we don't say ذو مالد صح وما هذا الحياة يدني إلا لعب وله وزينة واتفاقر بينكم واتكاثر في الأموان we want people to know the شرف and the importance of knowledge so we say ذو علم we change it a little point those are five the five sisters are we all together so حموكة means your father أخوكة means your brother حموكي means your in-laws فوكة means your mouth your mouth ذو means wherever you possess is called ذو the possessor of this okay ذو means possession or something صح okay this one we're going to have to stand over for a little bit longer than the rest okay and I can see your brains are not ready for it so we'll do it next week إن شاء الله تعالى we'll do it next week there are conditions for the شروط إعراب الأسماء الخمسة there are two شروط which is عامنة they all have in common and شروط which is خاصة specific types of condition to what ذو and فو ذو and فو they have a specific condition for them I will speak about those conditions إن شاء الله تعالى next lesson بإذن الله باريو anything which I have said that was wrong mistakes, shortcomings is for me إن شاء الله إن شاء الله إن شاء الله إن شاء الله إن شاء الله إن شاء الله أستغفرك وأتوب لي