Official Report 612KB pdf
Pavement Parking Ban (Advertising Campaign) (PE1929)
Item 2 is consideration of new petitions, of which we have two. PE1929, which was lodged by Bob Downie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Government to run an advertising campaign to raise public awareness of the forthcoming pavement parking ban. It notes that in order for drivers to change their behaviour and comply with the forthcoming ban, they “must ‘buy-into’” and “accept” that the needs of pavement users should be given priority over the
“desire to park as close as possible to their destination”
or to park at all.
Bob Downie suggests that, as the ban is not due to come into effect until 2023, the Scottish Government should use the intervening period to run an advertising campaign to alert motorists to the ban and highlight the negative effects of pavement parking.
In its submission, the Scottish Government has restated its commitment to running an advertising campaign to highlight the effects of inconsiderate parking, with a campaign planned for the six months preceding the date on which local authorities can begin issuing penalty charge notices for the new offences in 2023.
Quite unusually, therefore, we have before us a petition for which the objectives have actually been realised before we have had a chance to consider it.
Considering that the Scottish Government is committed to advertising before the ban comes into force next year, we can close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
Are colleagues content to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
I agree with our closing the petition, but perhaps we could advise the petitioner that the facility of contacting their local member or members of the Scottish Parliament is available to them for lodging written questions closer to the time to get more detail on the nature of the advertising campaign. If there is further dissatisfaction with how the campaign is running, that could be addressed through their local members of the Scottish Parliament.
That is a fair point—we can do that as well.
Digital Exclusion (Rural Households) (PE1931)
PE1931, which was lodged by Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent digital exclusion for rural properties and their households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second. All legislative and regulatory responsibility for telecommunications rests with the UK Government and Ofcom. The Scottish Government has, however, introduced a programme of work to improve digital connectivity in Scotland, which is what the petitioner seeks to influence.
The petitioner aims to ensure that priority is given to properties with slower internet speeds in rural areas, in particular, and he explains that rural households should have fair access in order to prevent digital exclusion.
The Scottish Government’s initial response sets out the measures that it has taken to date in relation to rolling out internet connectivity in rural areas. The response highlights the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme, which was created to ensure that everyone can access a superfast broadband service.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The petition is very important, especially for people who are in rural areas. It would be advantageous if we were to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether an impact assessment was carried out in advance of the R100 programme and the R100 broadband voucher scheme—which you mentioned, convener—being introduced to ensure that the people who are most at risk of digital exclusion were prioritised.
In addition, we could ask the Scottish Government how, in drafting such an impact assessment, it assessed which rural properties had the slowest internet speeds. That is the crux of the matter: the problems that are caused for individuals in rural areas who do not have digital access.
Thirdly, we could ask the Scottish Government whether it has taken any other measures to prioritise boosting connectivity for rural households with the lowest internet speeds.
Those issues are all vitally important, and it is incumbent on us to ask the Scottish Government where we are with all that, because—as I said—it is an area that is causing huge concern across many rural areas.
I suppose I should declare a former interest, in that I was minister with responsibility for what has developed in respect of R100, or at least parts of it.
In addition to the recommendations from Alexander Stewart, with which I thoroughly concur, it might be helpful to approach the contractor—I think that BT has been awarded the contracts—to seek more practical information as to how it goes about the difficult task of sequencing and prioritising the roll-out of the work. The amount of work is considerable in each of the three areas, which all have separate contracts, so the matter is not straightforward at all.
Given that the programme is regulated by contracts, it might be helpful if, in writing to the Scottish Government—and, if colleagues agree, to the successful contractor, which I understand is BT—we were to ask specifically whether the relevant contractual provisions could be shared with us. I do not see any reason why they should not be; now that the tender process has been completed, they should be in the public domain. I just wanted to flesh out and expand on Mr Stewart’s suggestions.
I am very happy to add those points to our list of considerations. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of our meeting.
11:11 Meeting continued in private until 11:19.Air ais
Continued Petitions