 Felly hefyd yn ddim yn gayag. Y fan yma yw'r ein bwysig o'r lleidiau ydych yn eu ddysgu. Rwy'n cael ei fod yn rhan o'r cyflawn, ond yn ddod 1 3 8 1 6. Rwy'n cael ei fod yn rhan o'r lleidiau ydych yn yr unrhyw gwerth o'r cyflawns. Mae'n gwneud yna wneud fel sgolwyng. Rydym e'r llywodau wedi cyfrwadau ond ei wneud y ddefnyddio'r lleidiau. Mae'n rhan o'r hawl addysg o'r lleidiau ydy, oedd rydych chi ddweud, ac yn wneud hyn fydd hon i ddim yn ei ddweud, ac darwch chi'r teimlo bai i ddweud'n ei ddweud yn 7 min. Felly, I권, ar gyfer ffawr, mae'n ddweud ydy chwarae, mae'n ddefnyddio'r ffodoeth o'i rhoi, a'i ddim yn ei ddweud a'u dweud i ddweud ac mae'n bai oedd eu chlas o'i ddweud. Caerdiwch i ddweud i ddweud, ac mae'n ddweud i ddweud i ddweud. I appreciate the members who intend to contribute, who may wish to talk about issues that they have experienced within their constituency or region, and I would encourage them to do so. I think about a useful starting point to explain how I got involved in this particular issue. Since April, my office has been inundated with letters, phone calls and emails from constituents who have been wrongly fined by a private car park in the centre of Perth. That has led to an umbrella effect with many other constituents from other parts, subsequently getting in touch when they have seen some of the press coverage that has resulted from that. While the rules for parking on public land are well-defined with local authorities, the rules for parking on private land are far less clear. The Canill Street multi-storey car park in Perth is operated by Smart Parking Limited. It changed its operations back in the early part of the year to use number plate recognition software, in addition to asking drivers to key in their registration plate details when paying for parking. As a result of both poor signage and an overly complicated payment process, the new system has caused a great deal of confusion. I have even been contacted by a former smart parking employee who has claimed that this new system was introduced deliberately by the company with the sole purpose of driving up revenue from fines. In addition to that, there have also been blatant errors whereby motorists have been fined despite having correctly paid for parking. I can testify to this myself. Deputy Presiding Officer, I myself was the victim of an incorrectly issued parking notice. Fortunately, I had retained proof of payment and was ever able successfully to challenge it, but I should not, of course, have had to go through that trouble at all in the first place, as the figures were correctly paid for the period in which I was parked. Incorrectly issuing fines is simply not good enough when one considers the mechanisms and the tactics some of these companies use to elicit payment. A number of constituents have contacted my office in great distress after receiving intimidating letters from debt collectors, threatening increased fines, expensive court action or a poorer credit rating following non-payment. As a result of those bully-boy tactics, a number of older and vulnerable residents have paid up despite not, in fact, being due to do so having correctly paid for parking. This is not on. Citizens Advice Scotland received nearly 4,000 calls to their helpline in 2013-14 in relation to private parking issues, up a remarkable 50 per cent on the previous year. A further 15,000 people have also used their website to access information on the laws governing parking tickets on private land. Despite the large number of complaints involved, it would appear that the vast majority of private parking companies operate well and operate within the regulations and the code of conduct by the British Parking Association. As three quarters of all queries to Citizens Advice relate to just 15 firms. I like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Citizens Advice Scotland for their role in increasing awareness among motorists of their rights as a result of their It's Not Fine campaign. Knowing both your rights and obligations when parking on private land is a must and I would encourage drivers across the country to consult with the help pages on the Citizens Advice Scotland website. In July, Citizens Advice Scotland released an important addition to their It's Not Fine campaign. That was a report with a detailed legal opinion on the rules for challenging a privately issued parking ticket in Scotland. That legal advice has made it crystal clear that parking companies can only issue fines that are conventurate with the losses that they have incurred as a result of a driver overstaying their welcome. For example, if parking costs £1 an hour but you are then issued with a fine of £60, you would have to be part there for 60 hours in order to justify the charge. To put this into context, Smart Parking in Perth, which I referred to earlier, regularly issues penalty noses of £160. I am aware of one case of an individual being charged as much as £200 when an unpaid charge has been passed to debt collectors. In no way am I suggesting that people shouldn't pay for their parking. Having a car park is a legitimate business and provides a vital local service and those who provide that service are entitled to be re-numerated for it. What is to be disputed is the abuse of the privileges of ownership by some private car parking owners. I wonder if Murdo Fraser would agree with me that it is not always car parks that pack. It is often for just going a little bit over time limits, for example, when people receive those so-called fines that are actually charges. I am very happy to agree with that point from Elaine Smith and that is exactly the case that many of my constituents have found themselves in, where even just a few minutes over their allocated time, they hit with a £60 fine that escalates up sometimes as high as £160 if they do not pay it, which is clearly disproportionate. People in that case should consult the legal advice from Citizens Advice Scotland, which makes it quite clear that such penalties are disproportionate and therefore are not legally enforceable. There is another issue with car park operators needing to make the terms of parking as clear as possible because this is a matter of contract law. When you enter a car park, it needs to be made clear the terms and conditions on which you are to be charged. Too many cases exist of incoherent signs or illegible small print, which means that people are not clear as to their rights. There does appear to be a serious disconnect between the practice of some private car parks and the code of contact created by the British Parking Association, which is very fair, but clearly is not being met in many cases. I think that it needs to be fairness and transparency for both car park operator and for motorist. For example, we see many private car parking firms calling their fines parking charge notices, which is obviously similar to penalty charge notices issued by local authorities and which of course do have legal standing. Blurring the lines between public and private cars is to be a tool that is used all too frequently by some private car park operators. The authorities in Scotland have a strong record when it comes to legislating for private car parks, with Scotland being the first country in the UK to outlaw private clampers. There have been a number of calls from Citizens Advice Scotland around the establishment of a fair and independent appeals process similar to England and Wales, and also asking the Scottish Government to look at establishing a mandatory register of fit and proper companies to operate car parks. My ask today is a much more simple one, and that is around the Scottish Government doing what they can to clarify the law around parking in private car parks so that people are better aware of their rights. Increasing awareness or motorists will ensure that fewer people are duped into paying incorrectly issued tickets and will also help to recognise their obligations when privately parking. Doing so has the power to cut down on confusion and frustration for both car park operators and for motorists. I would close by again commending Citizens Advice Scotland for their work in this area. Better informed consumers and drivers will be well placed to fight their corner against unscrupulous car park operators. I now call on Christine Grahame to be followed by Elaine Smith, a generous four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I too congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this debate. I had a similar motion myself repeating congratulations to CAS for the report. I thank members who signed my motion as well. Obviously I'm going to try not to replicate some of the points raised by Murdo, where it would be a bit difficult but I would try. This first came to my attention some years ago when substantial retail developments took place in Gallus Shields as a Walmart, Tesco, Marts and Spencer's and Nex all came to town. Local people in Gallus Shields were quite unfamiliar with being charged for parking at what they considered local shops, quite rightly, and quite a few were caught out in the early months and I dealt with many of the cases. Like Murdo Fraser, people generally come to you at the end of the road when they're receiving threatening letters and they're just about to pay up and then they came maybe because they didn't have the money, some had already done it and I did what I could for them. One of the first things I raised with them was that this was not a criminal matter. This was a matter of contract and in contract it has to be clear to you that you're entering a contract and that's why it should be that the notice displayed as you go in should be a Murdo Fraser, no doubt, correct me from his legal days an invitation to treat. It's an offer that this will be the price of doing it. I've got an example which is from the CAS report of one notice which is clear, the big one about the P on it and then tells you when the other one's all cluttered and you're driving in, you're driving in past this so you may not see it. Yes, indeed, yes. Many thanks. Just on that point though, I wonder if you might agree with me that the only way to actually make it clear that you're entering a contract is if there's a barrier. I don't know whether a barrier would be in fact physically possible in some of the supermarkets. I'm going into the terribly busy but I do think that it must be displayed very, very clearly and one of the victories we had was with one of the shopping areas where the notices were very small and people were unaware. There was one little notice as they drove in and we were successful in rebutting the fees that were being asked for. You must know that you're entering into a contract or ought to know that you're entering into a contract and what also makes it difficult for people is that they get referred to as charges and I use that in inverted commas because it's not. It's a fee. You are paying part of the contract says you can stay here for two hours or three hours free. After that there will be a fee, there will be a payment that you'll have to make for staying after that period and you're quite right. It should be commensurate with what would be a reasonable charge for staying there. Another important thing is that these parking firms access some of them are on a register and entitled to access the DVLA to obtain the name of the registered owner. Well, one of the rebutals for being liable is that you weren't the driver of the car. I'm not suggesting that people should always say that they weren't driving the car but it is the driver of the car who entered into the contract, not the registered owner who cannot have seen the notice in the first place. I know again that I had a success with a constituent in that area but still many people think that they've committed an offence and it's not all their own doing because of the language that is being used and I'm being kind to some of the companies because I think they deliberately use that language. If you look at what happens in the public parking areas where there is legislation and statutory and it is a criminal offence the fees are quite clear, the charges I should say are quite clear. Usually it's £60, maybe with a £30 if you stump up as some of us had to do, but once it was five minutes over speaking to the tax man in George deal, I'll never forgive him because he cost me £60 just for telling me something, I beg your pardon? I didn't set it against my tax from a sedentary intervention but one of the other issues is there's no right of appeal if you appeal you're appealing to the very people who are putting this alleged charge on you so I very much agree with Murdo Fraser that I hope the minister will consider regulating this through legislation so that we all know where we are that the parking companies know where they are and the public know where they are and it's clear there are limits on the amount that is paid for excessive staying that there is a right of appeal to a third party and that you have mitigation because there are circumstances where people have been unable to access say I've got mitigating reasons why I was 10 or 15 minutes over. Finally, before all that happens I think there's an obligation on the supermarkets and the major retailers to take some responsibility for what happens to their customers and not just to leave it to these other companies often coming from the south or from London issuing their letters from the south in London to take it upon not them but they are not aware of Scotslaw but to take it upon themselves to say this isn't fair to our customers I'm going to intervene here on behalf of Mr and Mrs X Thank you very much. Thank you. Now Collin Elaine Smith after which moved to closing speaker from the minister a generous four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer and I too congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing this debate to the chamber it's an issue that is of course very important to many people in Scotland including hundreds of my constituents who have sought my help with these unfair charges. Actually I was intending to lodge a motion myself to try and get a debate on it myself so I'm really pleased that not only has Murdo Fraser brought it forward but that I'm not on the chairing rota for tonight and I can actually participate in the debate. Can I also just say that my colleague Kara Hilton also had a motion on the issue I think entitled something along the lines of it's not fine as well. I first became aware of these packing issues a number of years ago and I myself have lodged motions I've written multiple letters and I've represented hundreds of constituents over the years and last year I also campaigned on the issue in conjunction with the Coatbridge community forum who were handing out leaflets on the matter to my constituents. Actually as far back as 2009 I lodged a motion in the Parliament entitled highway robbery about these charges because I believe that's exactly what many of these companies are doing. Dick Turpin hasn't got a look in. I would also like to congratulate the Citizens Advice Bureau on their campaign to raise awareness on the issue as noted in Murdo Fraser's motion and also for the helpful legal advice that they've issued on the matter. I've got a close relationship with my local CAB and they refer people to me because my office is just round the corner and I'm very happy then to write to the private companies on behalf of my constituents and I'll come back to this but I'll give some examples of the issues first. Many of the people who approach my office are disabled as blue badges have fallen off the dashboard or they've been placed upside down. They're receiving charges. As I alluded to in my earlier intervention I've also had a number of cases where people have been issued charges from car parks with a time limit because they've left the car park and gone back maybe later in the day after shopping elsewhere. Inevitably these people have spent a great deal of money in the local shops so there's definitely no loss from outside my constituency of contacted me to say that they're never going to shop in our retail parks again. So actually these parking restrictions and charges can themselves lead to a loss of town centre trade thus affecting the local economy in places like Coatbridge. I also had a woman approach me for help because she'd been out shopping she spent quite a bit of time in the supermarket whose car park she was in and on her return to the car she had to breastfeed her baby with a time limit and she got sent one of these charges. So all of these people old, young, mothers disabled are then harassed by the parking companies and debt collecting agencies and as Murdo Fraser said earlier they often feel bullied into paying the charges. Now I've written personally to a number of different companies for hundreds of constituents and the response is very some cancel the charge some say they'll reduce the charge but a company has cancelled the charge but asked my disabled constituent whose badge was upside down it was on the dashboard but was upside down to pay a £15 donation to disabled charities. Well that's unacceptable and not least because companies can use those charitable donations then to claim tax relief. Elderly people in particular I have found don't feel comfortable ignoring the letters that arrive from these parking companies and they're comforted when they arrive on their behalf and they're relieved if the charges are then cancelled. Now I represent a constituency with high levels of poverty and deprivation and I feel really angry that my constituents are receiving these charges in the first place and then they're worrying about them on a lot of cases they're just paying out the money that they can ill afford and just with the intervention I made earlier, given that it's contract law I think it would be very difficult for the companies to prove a case in quote, actually no matter the signage because how do you prove that you've actually read the signs no matter what size they are. That brings me then to an issue reserved to Westminster but relevant to this debate which Christine Grahame touched on and that involves the release of diverse details from the DVLA to some of these private companies. Not only is this concerning with regard to data protection but reports last year show it's also costing the taxpayer money. A subsidy apparently arises due to the private firms paying £2.50 for documentation but that costs the DVLA £1.84 to process so last year the agency received £1.8 million applications from private companies which therefore cost the public purse around £612,000 so it's costing us public money to help these private parking parking companies harass and extort money from our constituents that just cannot be right so just before concluding can I say I think it's important to be clear that I don't condone a responsible parking because in a danger to other road users of pedestrians I don't condone selfish parking across two bays, stopping others getting a space and I certainly don't condone ignorant people parking in disabled bays when they're not disabled or in parent and child bays without children but I think there are ways which shopping centres or supermarkets could deal with that without employing companies who then harass their customers as Christine Grahame mentioned. Presiding Officer, I'll continue to fight for the many constituents in Co-Bridge and Crescent affected by these private parking companies but it really is about time it was stopped. I congratulate Murdo Fraser on raising this important issue and the Citizens Advice Bureau for their work and I really hope that these highway robbers can be stopped in their tracks because it really isn't fine. Thanks very much. I now call Minister Derek Mackay Minister, seven minutes or thereby? Thanks very much Presiding Officer I was just wondering when Elaine Smith was speaking as Murdo Fraser and Christine Grahame had done confessed that their motivation was altruistic, the interests of their constituents and that's very fair and accurate. Okay, I'll give way. Elaine Smith. Thank you Minister for giving way. Actually one of the first cases I had was my mother and my stepfather one had parked early in the day cos he only had the one car one had gone down later and then they received one of these so-called fines and were very upset about it that it's three out of three speakers so far affected by this issue and can I make it four cos I too have been subject as a passenger of course to someone incurring an excessive and unfair fine at the time that's a 100% record of members motivated on this issue not of course through self-interest at all the Citizens Advice Scotland report is accurate and I think revealing an issue that is there is irresponsible parking we'll return to that matter of course in the very near future and I have an imminent position on that to share but this is about irresponsible charging for parking in which there is an undoubtedly an issue Elaine Smith just said it should stop and it should stop now I agree if I had a magic button to press it would make it so I would press it but it is more complicated than a simple change in the law the operators in a partnership basis to impress upon them the concerns that's been raised before and assisted with the Citizens Advice report and of course the experiences of members in the chamber and of course outwith who have given me many case examples of how the unfair application of a charging regime has impacted on constituents there are legal issues here some devolved, some reserved terms of Murdo Fraser's plea for clarity in the law and raising awareness of course I can commit to that yes but I don't think that in itself will go far enough to resolve the issue I think I'll need a stronger approach than just that although I have through officials had the message shared with the operators that I expect action to be taken around transparency signage, stopping, excessive charging and other matters but to Christine Grahame's request specifically for legislative action and the stronger regulations around that then yes that is being explored at the moment and I may well have to regulate or propose regulation maybe a future parliament that is the time to consider this if the current approach is not satisfactory and I fear that because of the actions of the minority as members have described then it may well be required and it is disappointing to hear that some private businesses because that's essentially what they are are acting out with the spirit of what is fair of course Christine Grahame I'm gratified here that the minister is actually considering perhaps regulating I won't put it any stronger than that as he hasn't but in the meantime the right of appeal either not to have to pay this or have mitigation is that being dealt with because if that were there then wouldn't have people having to go to their MSP or Sydney's advice Scotland so yes I mean it may well be in place at the moment but it is as Christine Grahame has described both voluntary and not particularly effective as well sometimes because who regulates those who are making the decisions of course there's a different position south of the border in terms of the independent appeal service that's also something that's been explored at the moment for Scotland but that would require a change in position to make sure that that was enforceable here as you say it's the partnership voluntary approach I don't think is working and that's why I'm having to consider regulations and legislations as appropriate going forward but it would be better if the operators just acted more responsibly and fairly and consistently across the country I have the full confidence to the minister for giving way I mean he'll be aware of the British parking association code of conduct would you agree with me that if all companies actually followed that to the letter and the spirit in fact we wouldn't need to go further with regulation yes I would and we could also have further progress on capping of fines and charges as well and if we removed the bad practice of pretending that the statutory penalties that would address another issue if we had better signage that would address the contract issue so there are a range of things that could be done on a voluntary basis my difficulty as minister is if they don't volunteer to do it what we left with then it is legislation and regulation because our fair approach with them hasn't translated into a fair approach with their customers and people they've entered into a contract with so I'll take one more then I can finally make progress on my corner thank you very much minister for taking the intervention I know it's not your responsibility but I wonder if you have an opinion at all on the DVLA handing out these number plates so that these companies can actually harass and send to debt collectors to people there are of course a number of issues there but basically if conditions are kept to in terms of responsible use of that people operating as per the code of conduct having an independent appeal services a range of things that were in place and that would be the responsible to do arbitrarily issuing that information for people to be hounded unfairly and given the impression that they've broken the law I don't agree with so if the whole code was kept with if companies were acting ethically and responsibly then I would have more comfort around that particular issue and that's why I'm taking a look at the very complex issue for the reasons it's given every member has given an accurate appraisal of how their constituents have been affected and I think that's why we have to look very closely at what Parliament will be able to do but I do want to send a strong message again as minister clear signage, fair approach, consistent approach treating people reasonably not pretending that this is a statutory breach of law and therefore focal face all sorts of penalties should they not comply capping at a reasonable level the fine, acknowledging the citizens advice Scotland guidance as well and I think we'll move forward to ensure that people are treated more fairly which is the essence of the citizens advice Scotland campaign I of course cannot as Scottish Government as minister say don't pay the fine, that would not be responsible for me to take that message but if people have checked their legal rights and responsibilities many will realise they have not breached what they think they may have breached and therefore my advice is absolutely check your rights, check the law seek representation and do the right thing and certainly on the part of Scottish Government we'll take on board all the comments from today, convey that to all the operators and then strive to have that more fairer transparent and reasonable approach so that no one is unfairly charged to the point that causes them both anxiety and financial loss thank you very much thank you all for taking part in this debate and I suspend, I now close it's meeting of Parliament