Sealladh Farsaing
Tha am Bile seo airson:
- leigeil le comhairlean sgìrean sgaoilidhean ìosal a chruthachadh
- comhairlean a chuideachadh a' toirt piseach air seirbheisean bus ionadail
- tiogaidean 'sgiobalta' a bhrosnachadh - tiogaidean sùbailte agus dealanach - as urrainn seirbheisean eadar-dhealaichte a cheangal ri chèile
- parcadh air cabhsairean agus parcadh dùbailte a dhèanamh an aghaidh an lagha
- riaghladh obair-rathaid a leasachadh
- bòrd Chanàlan na h-Alba a mheudachadh
An t-adhbhar a chaidh am Bile a dhèanamh
Tha còmhdhail cudromach gus leigeil le daoine beatha shaidhbhir a bhith aca agus cur ri fàs eaconamach seasmhach.
Tha am Bile ag amas air dèanamh cinnteach gu bheil lìonra còmhdhala na h-Alba ag obair ann an dòigh nas èifeachdaiche agus gu bheil e nas ruigsinniche. Tha e cuideachd ag amas air càileachd an èadhair ann am bailtean agus mòr-bhailtean a leasachadh. Cuidichidh e gus cumhachd a thoirt do chomhairlean na h-Alba agus inbhean cunbhalach a stèidheachadh gus am bi còmhdhail nas fhasa, nas glaine is nas sgiobalta na bha riamh roimhe.
Tha e nas fhasa dèiligeadh ri diofar dhuilgheadasan còmhdhala san aon Bhile seach mòran Bhilean beaga, agus faodar aghaidh a thoirt air na cùisean nas luaithe.
Gheibh thu barrachd fiosrachaidh ann an sgrìobhainn le Riaghaltas na h-Alba a tha a' mìneachadh a’ Bhile.Where do laws come from?
The Scottish Parliament can make decisions about many things like:
- agriculture and fisheries
- education and training
- environment
- health and social services
- housing
- justice and policing
- local Government
- some aspects of tax and social security
These are 'devolved matters'.
Laws that are decided by the Scottish Parliament come from:
Bill stage timeline
Introduced
The Scottish Government sends the Bill and related documents to the Parliament.
Related information from the Scottish Government on the Bill
Why the Bill is being proposed (Policy Memorandum)
Explanation of the Bill (Explanatory Notes)
How much the Bill is likely to cost (Financial Memorandum)
Opinions on whether the Parliament has the power to make the law (Statements on Legislative Competence)
Information on the powers the Bill gives the Scottish Government and others (Delegated Powers Memorandum)
Stage 1 - General principles
Committees examine the Bill. Then MSPs vote on whether it should continue to Stage 2.
Committees involved in this Bill
Who examined the Bill
Each Bill is examined by a 'lead committee'. This is the committee that has the subject of the Bill in its remit.
It looks at everything to do with the Bill.
Other committees may look at certain parts of the Bill if it covers subjects they deal with.
Who spoke to the lead committee about the Bill
First meeting transcript
The Convener
Item 2 is our first evidence session on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Due to the large number of topics contained in the bill, the evidence taking will be structured in three parts. Part 1 will cover buses and smart ticketing, part 2 will cover low-emission zones and parking and part 3 will cover road works, canals and regional transport partnerships.
We will take evidence today from three groups of Scottish Government officials. I welcome to the first session Tasha Geddie from the Transport (Scotland) Bill team; Peter Grant, who is team leader for bus policy; Gordon Hanning, who is head of the integrated ticketing unit; and Kevin Gibson and Alison Martin, who are solicitors in the legal department.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Good morning, panel. I am going to ask questions about buses and smart ticketing. How will the bill improve the provision of lifeline rural bus services?
Peter Grant (Scottish Government)
The bill sets out new and improved options for local authorities to address bus services in their area. We have set out three tools, the first of which is a new partnership model. The second tool is access to local franchising, which is where the local authority would compete in the market for bus services at set times in the year, and the third is for a local authority to run bus services directly or at arm’s length. That applies to supported services and not commercial services.
The bill also offers provisions on information for bus users so that bus operators will share more information on fares, routes, timetables and so on. The last aspect is that if an operator deregisters a service, the bill gives local authorities the power to ask that operator for patronage and revenue information on those services. All of those tools will be available to local authorities.
You said that you were particularly interested in the rural sphere.
John Finnie
Yes. How would those tools enhance what is there at the moment?
Peter Grant
There are quite a lot of different tools—I am not sure which one you are particularly interested in. We have tried to improve the framework of existing options. Tools already exist in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, for example quality partnerships and quality contracts. We have tried to improve those and go beyond them. We have also looked at direct running of bus services. Are there particular issues that you are interested in delving into?
John Finnie
Yes. There is frustration that, as we understand it, what is seen as a very good model—the Lothian Buses model—is not an option. Will you explain the legislative barriers to having a public operator operating successfully on a commercial basis, as Lothian Buses does? Why are those barriers not addressed by the bill?
Peter Grant
You are right to characterise that as not being addressed by the bill. Lothian Buses is the only remaining example in Scotland of a municipal bus company. There are a number down south—they are companies that were put at arm’s length from councils back in the 1980s. Through deregulation most of them were sold off to the private sector. At the time, however, Lothian Buses was not sold off, so it remains council owned. Lothian operates commercially and can compete in the commercial market, like First or Stagecoach.
John Finnie
Why does the bill not facilitate other local authorities responding in a similar way?
Peter Grant
The reason why we focused on supported bus services is that we had a full public consultation towards the end of last year. The issues that local authorities brought to the fore applied to cases, particularly in rural situations, where they already had the power to support bus services, which they do by putting them out to tender.
There are cases where no bids come forward, or just one bid, and local authorities are concerned about the price being high—essentially it is a monopoly situation. That was the specific problem that we sought to solve with the provisions in the bill. However, as you say, that is constrained to the supported-service end of things, not to the commercial end.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
Would you accept that if there is a disincentive to local authorities to set up municipal bus companies, and if Lothian Buses can continue with that model but no other local authority can do so, the bill would maintain a two-tier system? If there is a two-tier system, and commercial bus companies could bid for franchises, would local authorities also be able to bid for franchises?
Peter Grant
Strathclyde partnership for transport, under the powers that it inherited from being a passenger transport authority—essentially those powers were transferred to SPT—can already run buses, including in the commercial space. So far, it has chosen not to do so.
There is also an exemption in the Transport Act 1985 for islands authorities, although I think that you are interested in local authorities more broadly.
Colin Smyth
Yes. With respect, SPT and the islands do not cover the whole of Scotland. I live in Dumfries and Galloway. Under the bill’s provisions, Dumfries and Galloway Council would not be able to set up a company to run bus services, except for those services that currently make a loss. That is different from Lothian, so why do the provisions not apply to the whole of Scotland? Using Dumfries and Galloway as an example, would the council be able to bid for a franchise in its area under the bill’s provisions?
Peter Grant
I have tried to lay out our thinking behind the bill, which focuses on supported services. Since the bill was published we have had a number of discussions with stakeholders. Engagement on the bill has been going on for several years, but at recent information sessions and one-to-one meetings it has become apparent that there is some interest among certain authorities and stakeholder groups for a Lothian Buses model to be possible.
It is important to stress that although the bill does not provide for such a model, we are looking into the considerations around it.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
When a new transport bill was mooted, some of us hoped that it would improve transport and improve buses. I live in the SPT area and I am sorry but the current system does not work for me or my constituents. Are we missing a trick here? I had hoped that councils could run their own services in areas where the service is poor. We have got people out there who cannot get a bus after 6 o’clock or who cannot get a bus at a regular time. Can we not be bold and allow councils, even those that are partly in pay to SPT, to have a Lothian-type system?
Peter Grant
I am not sure that I can say much more about what the bill does and the rationale for where we are. We have had some discussions on the Lothian-style model and the commercial model. We would be looking into things such as competition and state-aid considerations to make sure that those things were safeguarded. The work has not been done on that yet, but those are considerations that we would have to take into account.
We recognise that Lothian runs good buses. The situation there has evolved over time, and we would want to be very careful not to do anything that would have unintended consequences that would undermine the Lothian model.
The Convener
We are at a slight impasse here because some of our questions relate to policy and are probably more appropriately directed at the minister when he comes in.
John Finnie
The committee is aware from other work that we have done that the research shows a significant decline in bus numbers due to increased car use, increased bus fares and increased journey times. Are there any measures in the bill that specifically address those issues?
Peter Grant
We are very mindful of that. We started by looking at bus patronage, which has been declining since the 1960s at least. You are absolutely right to compare that with car use and car ownership, which are the most closely correlated trends. It is important to say that bus patronage is not uniform across Scotland. The Scotland number is very much driven by Glasgow and Strathclyde, which has seen a more severe decline than other areas, but even in other areas we are seeing issues with bus patronage.
Recent work by KPMG on behalf of the Confederation of Passenger Transport tried to tease out why that patronage decline has taken place. We have a lot of discussions about that. Congestion is one issue that keeps coming back to us, and the tools that we have put in place are put in place with that in mind. For example, the bus service improvement partnership model gives a framework and a set of tools for local authorities to work with bus operators to tackle things like congestion that get in the way of a good, efficient bus service for the bus user. That is one tool that is in place to tackle bus patronage.
09:15The Convener
Jamie Greene has some questions on bus service improvement partnerships.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
Good morning, panel. I will try to bunch some of this up, and I appreciate that some of these questions might be for the cabinet secretary. You said that consultation on this subject has been taking place for quite some time. Do you have an idea of how many local authorities would like to set up or operate a bus service?
Peter Grant
The consultation gave us a good view of what local authorities thought of all the tools. We can happily provide you with the numbers.
It is fair to say that we are at quite an early stage, with the bill having just gone public. Local authorities are interested in having a framework of tools and some of them are interested in using particular ones. We have seen that from news stories, and we have had conversations with individual authorities that have said that they would like to run bus services directly. There are other areas where there is interest, but local authorities are not fully signed up to them because they have not seen the detail of the proposals in secondary legislation.
Jamie Greene
To give the committee an idea of how relevant this part of the bill will be, can you say whether we talking about a handful or dozens?
Peter Grant
A handful of municipal services are saying that they are very interested, and other authorities have come forward since the bill has been published and the discussion around the commercial end of direct running has begun. It is an emerging picture, so I do not have a set number.
Jamie Greene
Is it possible that there has not been more interest because the bill, as Richard Lyle said, does not open up adequate opportunities for local authorities to operate viable services? My understanding of the explanatory notes is that local authorities cannot operate a service if an existing commercial service is operating in the market, and they could only operate a service on what are classed as “unmet public transport need” routes. It is quite unclear how you define an area where there is unmet public transport need. Is that an area where there is no service running, where there is a poor service running or where a commercial operator has pulled out, which is commonplace across many of our constituencies?
Is it the case that it is simply not going to be commercially viable for any local authority to operate a service and that is perhaps why there has been less interest than we would have imagined?
Peter Grant
Local authorities’ ability to run bus services directly or at arm’s length is dealt with under section 63 of the 1985 act and the powers for local authorities to meet an unmet need. It is something that local authorities do as their meat and drink. They look at their communities and look at what bus services are necessary to serve those communities adequately, then they look at which services are provided commercially already. Currently, when they determine that there is a gap—an unmet need—they go out to tender to the private sector. All we are trying to do is extend the power for them to run those services directly.
We have had a number of conversations, chiefly with the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers, which very much welcomes that tool and says that it will be helpful, especially in cases where local authorities are not getting any bids for their tenders and would like the ability to run a service directly. There is some frustration that there is not the ability to do that uniformly across Scotland.
Jamie Greene
I wonder—
The Convener
Jamie, I am sorry, but we are running out of time. It is an interesting problem and it seems strange to me that we have got to where we are with the bill, after a lot of consultation, and we still have not bottomed out whether authorities want to do what they now seem to be expressing a wish to do. I cannot understand why that has not come to light earlier. Maybe we can put that question to the minister.
I am going to have to move on. Peter Chapman, can you ask a very succinct question on the subject that you have said that you want to ask about?
Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)
I will be as succinct as I possibly can. My question is about bus service improvement partnerships. The bill proposes the abolition of statutory bus quality partnerships and their replacement with BSIPs. We are told that a local transport authority would not be allowed to proceed with a BSIP if a “sufficient number” of bus operators that would be affected by the proposals object to it. We are not told what a “sufficient number” might be, but it seems to me that that allows bus operators a veto over any BSIP proposal.
The Convener
Sorry, but I asked for a succinct question. If we can keep them sharp, I will be able to fit in more questions and answers.
That question was to you, Peter Grant. May we have your short answer to that, please?
Peter Grant
I will try to be as quick as possible. In essence, the BSIP model tries to put a framework around a negotiation, so that local authorities and bus operators can sit down together and look at what communities need and what is required to deliver those things. You are right to home in on the voting mechanism, and the detail of that will be set out in regulations.
A local authority will put together a plan for a partnership for a given area. As you say, the partnership can only go ahead if the bus operators agree to it, so it is very much a negotiation done together. The local authority will want good, frequent bus services. It might look at maximum fares, for example, and have some control over that aspect. The bus operator, for its part, would perhaps want action on congestion and parking, for example. For the partnership to go ahead, it is important that both operators and the local authority buy into it.
The Convener
Peter, did you get your answer to what “sufficient number” means? What does it mean?
Peter Chapman
Have you any idea what a “sufficient number” means? The answer confirms what I said: that the bus operators de facto have a veto over the whole system, because if a certain number object—we do not know the number—then it will not go ahead.
Peter Grant
It is fair to say that if a large number of operators do not want to take part in the partnership, it cannot go ahead. The local authority would be expected to look at the other options that we put forward, in that case. What a “sufficient number” means is not laid out in the primary legislation. We are looking to set that out in regulations. It is quite a sensitive model to try to understand, as it involves not just the number of operators in the area but their market share. We want to work on that model with local authorities and bus operators and make sure that it is set at the right level for Scotland by regulation.
The Convener
I fear that we are not going to get that answer until the cabinet secretary comes in.
Richard Lyle
If legislation refers to a devolved matter, we can approve it or we can amend it. You have mentioned the 1985 act. Let me throw another act at you. No bus quality contracts have been established since the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 came into force. I think that we passed that one. Why do you think that the local service franchising proposals in the bill will meet with more success than the quality contract provisions of the 2001 act?
Peter Grant
We have had a number of conversations with local authorities, RTPs and others to try to improve what was laid out in the quality contract provisions of the 2001 act. One thing that we consulted on, which had a great deal of support, was removing the entry bar to quality contracts, or to franchising, as we are calling the new thing. Previously, the formulation was that quality contracts had to be necessary to implement the relevant general policies, and that was seen as too high a bar for them even to be attempted. We have worked with local authorities around the entry point and we have lowered that bar for the local authority to enter into an assessment for a franchise.
We have kept other checks and balances, because it is such a large intervention in the market. We have had quite a lot of positive comments about the franchising offer that we have put forward.
Richard Lyle
You said “franchise”, but you can only have a franchise if you are going to do the whole thing. You have said that councils cannot run a service if people object or if people are running it themselves privately or through a bus company. Where is the change for councils? I do not see any.
Peter Grant
I need to explain more clearly the different options that we have. Previously, we were talking about partnerships, and, yes, the bus operators must agree to those. For a franchise, a local authority must do a business case and prove that it has looked into all the considerations around that, and the operators do not have to agree to it. It is a power for the local authorities to go down a different route, if they wish to.
The Convener
I suspect, Richard, that when the cabinet secretary comes in, you will be grilling him, and I suspect that Peter Grant will relay to him the pressure that he is being put under here.
Richard Lyle
I apologise to Mr Grant if he feels any pressure.
The Convener
I think that he dealt with it very well. I notice that Gordon Hanning is looking nervous because he will be the next one up.
Maureen Watt
I would like to ask about the smart ticketing proposals in the bill. Given that the Scottish Government already sets smart ticketing technical standards and processes for most public transport through the national concessionary travel scheme and rail franchise contracts, what is the purpose of the smart ticketing proposals?
Gordon Hanning (Scottish Government)
You summarised it very well. We want to build on what we already have in the concessionary travel scheme and the rail franchise. We want to encourage and enable a national infrastructure: a common platform that will make it easier to introduce smart ticketing and smart ticketing products consistently across the whole of Scotland, regardless of whether it is for the concessionary travel scheme or some other part of the public transport network.
Maureen Watt
But the proposals, as far as I can see, rely on local authorities implementing smart ticketing schemes. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, have national integrated smart card schemes. We have been talking about smart ticketing and smart cards and everything for decades, and nothing seems to be happening. One of my worries is that now people just swipe their card—let us say on London transport—and do not know whether they are getting the best deal on their tickets or not. There is still little or no crossover in terms of using both the tram and the bus, for example, whereas in other countries people can use their tickets on all modes of transport.
Gordon Hanning
There is a slight difference: there is the ticketing system and then there is the infrastructure that underpins it, which is what this legislation focuses on. The ticketing products, which might exist on paper or on smart card today, are still largely a matter for operators.
Maureen Watt
How is the bill going to make things different and better for the passenger?
Gordon Hanning
We believe that it will encourage the creation of that common platform. That is what you see in any country in Europe: a consistent infrastructure for ticketing to operate on. It should make it a lot easier for operators to collaborate on the ticketing and fare system that you have just described, and also for local authorities, where there is a need and a demand, to create that multi-operator provision in an area.
Maureen Watt
To go back to my point, we have been talking about it for years and the operators have not done anything. They have not collaborated to make it better and easier for the passenger to use public transport.
Gordon Hanning
You are right. They have done a lot of stuff, but they have not maybe done it as quickly as we would like to see. That is precisely why we want to put in place the provisions in the bill—to try to inject a bit more pace into what is already happening. We want to encourage and enable the provision of a national common infrastructure, because without that we will always struggle to provide something that is consistent for passengers across Scotland.
We want to create a national advisory board for ministers, through which operators, local authorities and passenger representatives can come together and advise on the right way to develop and use prevailing technology, again with a view to making all this easier. We want to clarify the powers that are available to local authorities to set up multi-operator schemes and arrangements in their areas.
09:30Colin Smyth
I am seeking some clarity. In 2012, the Government announced that it was introducing the saltire card—a national multimodal smart card—but you are now saying that you are enabling the industry to do something. Has the saltire card effectively been binned?
Gordon Hanning
No. The card is out there and has been there for years. What we want to do is to make things progressively easier for all. In Scotland there are 200 bus operators, 13 ferry operators, a tram operator, a subway operator and five rail operators. We are trying to encourage and make it easier for them to operate on a common platform. That does not mean that we force them all to use the saltire card; some operators have chosen to develop their own version of the card. We are seeking—and we have had a lot of success already—to make all those cards, however they are branded, operate in exactly the same way.
The Convener
So, there will be a good excuse for Stewart Stevenson to bring out the six or seven cards he brings out at every committee meeting to say that he has to use them all.
Jamie Greene
That last answer really highlights the problem. There are multiple operators all running different schemes with no standardised technology. It is a very confusing picture from a consumer’s point of view. You can get multiple cards. Some people have no idea which card does what, or on which mode of transport or in which part of Scotland they can be used. The pricing models are different across every operator.
Surely the Transport (Scotland) Bill, from a policy point of view, was an amazing opportunity to do something about that and create some standardisation from the top down, through a Government-led policy that took the initiative and put an end to that hugely complex and fragmented marketplace for the consumer. Why did it not do that?
Gordon Hanning
I think that we are trying to encourage and enable that common platform.
Jamie Greene
You are setting up an advisory board and you are enabling national standards. That is not, to me, taking the lead in solving this problem.
Gordon Hanning
We would expect the operators to pay the cost of providing that infrastructure, in the same way as they would put tyres on the buses, for example, so we felt that it was important that the operators had a say in the technology and the migration. Technology develops very quickly. It is about both the operators agreeing when to introduce a new type of technology and what the migration path should be towards that new technology, and it is about operators advising the minister of their thoughts on all that. We are trying to encourage and enable that national platform with this legislation.
The Convener
Thank you very much. I fear that that is another thing on which the cabinet secretary will be pushed harder when he comes in.
I suspend the meeting to allow officials to change over.
09:33 Meeting suspended.09:34 On resuming—
The Convener
We continue our evidence session on the Transport (Scotland) Bill with Scottish Government officials. We will now look at low-emission zones and parking. Tasha Geddie is still in place and we welcome Stephen Thomson, who is head of environmental and sustainability policy; George Henry, who is the policy manager for parking; and Anne Cairns and Clare McGill, who are both solicitors.
Peter Chapman
We are on low-emission zones now, folks. As I understand it, there are two ways to operate an LEZ. You can either place a ban on certain classes of vehicle and impose a penalty for non-compliance on them if they come in, or you can impose a charge to enter the LEZ if the entry criteria are not met, which is the system that is in operation in London. Why has the Scottish Government chosen the first option?
Stephen Thomson (Scottish Government)
We asked in the consultation in November whether the penalty option or the charge option would be favoured. The penalty option was slightly more favoured than the charge option. That is the first reason for the decision: stakeholders were asking for that. Scottish ministers have also had a long-standing policy on road pricing, which is effectively what a charge would be. The powers exist for road pricing but at this point in time, the Scottish ministers’ view on road pricing is that they are not in favour. That is the second reason why the ban route was chosen.
There is a third option as well, which is essentially a ban as a form of access restriction. It prevents the dirtiest vehicles from entering a space, whereas a charge would allow those dirty vehicles to enter the space if a person was willing to pay a fee. There is a fairness and equity element in terms of going down the ban route.
Peter Chapman
I understand that. Your last bit of the answer leads me on to the next question. The effectiveness of an LEZ is dependent on the scheme design. The Scottish ministers will set out the emission standards, vehicles that are exempt and penalty charges in regulations rather than in the bill. Can you provide any indication at this point of what might be in these regulations? Do you have some detail of how the system is going to operate?
Stephen Thomson
Yes. We have outlined a series of proposals in the consultation. We felt that the parity with similar LEZ schemes across Europe, for example, in relation to emission standards, going towards a Euro 6 standard for diesel and a Euro 4 standard for petrol, would provide a basis for the Scottish LEZs to be among the most ambitious in Europe.
As you say, we have a series of regulation-making powers on things such as penalties and exemptions. We listed a number of exemptions in the consultation, including holders of the blue badge or a derivative of the blue badge, and blue-light services. We talked about vehicles that provide essential services, such as road gritters, road sweepers and so on. Other topics that have come up in discussion with businesses include vehicles that are involved in funeral services or weddings. Those are the types of topics that we would want to explore in the regulations for exemptions.
Peter Chapman
Have you any thoughts on what the penalty charges are likely to be?
Stephen Thomson
We have had thoughts. The top end of the charge was set by guidance from Anne Cairns in relation to what the maximum fine could be. We have included an option within the bill that there can be an escalation of or surcharges to the penalty so that the penalty might start at a relatively low level, perhaps akin to a speeding fine, but can escalate depending on the number of offences. That, again, is where we would want to take a regulation-making power, but we have tried to follow existing legislation, where it is already in place. Anne Cairns might want to give examples here, but something at the level of a speeding fine might be a reasonable place to begin in relation to the penalty charge, and there could perhaps be an escalation thereafter.
The Convener
Anne, do you want to say a bit more on this? There are different levels of speeding fine.
Anne Cairns (Scottish Government)
The standard speeding fine might be around £60, but we have not come to any conclusions about what the actual fine will be. It will very much be a process of taking the evidence as the bill goes through, and then ministers will make a final decision. The regulation will state the actual amount in due course.
Peter Chapman
If you are saying that, the first time that you come into an LEZ with a vehicle that should not be in an LEZ, you will be charged £60, that seems very harsh to me. That is just my comment.
Anne Cairns
No final conclusions have been come to on that. It is still a process that is being worked out. The amount will be set in the regulations.
Peter Chapman
When do you think that some of these details might be forthcoming? Do you have a sense of the timescale? It is very important that we know more about this.
Stephen Thomson
Yes. To give you a flavour of where we are at, we are starting right now to develop the outline of what regulations will look like. We do not want to be in a place where the bill goes through its due process, receives royal assent and then and only then do the regulations start being developed. That is not what the local authorities want, and it is not what we want. In terms of a rough indication of timescale, we will probably develop the outline of the regulations between now and Christmas and then, between Christmas and summer, finalise what they would look like in tandem with what the parliamentary process identifies.
Jamie Greene
Good morning to the new panel members. There is a tremendous amount of good will in the committee and probably around the Parliament for the intentions of an LEZ. However, there is also a huge amount of concern outside of the walls of this building, particularly among drivers and people who reside in potential LEZs and also among businesses that operate in LEZs, around the possibility that there may be different schemes operating—different grace periods and exemptions—on a city-by-city basis. Do you recognise some of those concerns? What are you doing to address them?
Stephen Thomson
Yes, it is a valid point that the schemes in some instances could be different. We have listened to what local authorities have asked for and they essentially ask for two things that seem to be diametrically opposed. They ask for consistency in terms of emissions standards, penalties and exemption lists, but they also ask for the powers to create their own LEZ based on either the size, the scope or the timing, which is fair enough because the local authorities are best placed to understand the air quality challenges that they have.
The point that you make about communicating to members of the public what the differences are is well made. For example, we know that Glasgow is looking at a suite of vehicles in its LEZ but if another city decides to include, for example, buses and only private cars, we have to communicate to members of the public and businesses that, for example, heavy goods vehicles or light goods vehicles are not included. That is where the work must happen during the grace periods to let those businesses and individuals know what the differences are.
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the flexibility that is allowed to determine, for example, the geographic areas of the zones, which streets are not included or the time of day, depending on the needs of that city. However, surely a scheme that means you can drive in one city but not in another will cause tremendous amounts of confusion for businesses and commuters. Can you also clarify whether it is likely that there would be exemptions for residents, by which I mean private car operators? The London scheme, for example, offers a fairly substantial discount scheme on the opt-in version of such a zone. Do you think that it is right that people who reside within LEZs should be penalised for driving their cars to and from their home simply because of where they live?
Stephen Thomson
That point about residents living in LEZs was identified during the consultation exercise. That is the reason why we have included an additional grace period in the bill. The grace period, on the face of it, is for all vehicles and then there is an additional grace period for residents who live within an LEZ. They have an additional period of time to adapt.
Jamie Greene
But a grace period has an end point. It is a temporary exemption, not a permanent exemption. Why is there only a grace period and not a plan to provide permanent exemption for residents?
Stephen Thomson
It is a case of working in tandem with how the fleet looks just now versus how the fleet might look at the end of the grace period if the maximum grace period is taken. The fleet is naturally going to evolve anyway towards a Euro 6 standard and away from the older vehicles, but you are right that there will be some residents who, even at the end of an extended grace period, will still have vehicles that are non-compliant. There will be people who will have to adapt as part of the LEZs being put in place.
09:45Jamie Greene
When you say “adapt”, what you are talking about here, for the benefit of the members of the public who are watching today’s proceedings, is that people who perhaps are stuck with older vehicles, perhaps people who cannot afford modern vehicles and rely on their vehicle, will in effect be faced with a daily fine to commute or travel around their own cities. Is that the potential scenario?
Stephen Thomson
Yes, that is one scenario.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
The next issue that we want to address is parking, and specifically parking on pavements, footpaths or footways, or however we describe them. In my constituency, there are quite a lot of streets where the road is quite narrow, the pavements are reasonably wide and it makes sense to put two wheels on the pavement. The police come to community meetings and they say to residents, “You should put two wheels on the pavement. That makes sense. It keeps the roads flowing and it keeps the pavements clear.” Can you explain to me why we are going down this road of a blanket ban, with the councils having to exempt certain roads, rather than just saying that, where there is a problem, the council would have the power to ban pavement parking?
George Henry (Scottish Government)
When we discussed this through our public consultation and with stakeholders, it was felt that a national ban would be the best approach. The bill requires local authorities to undertake assessments of their roads to determine which roads should be exempt. For the ones that you have described, these will be set out in the ministerial direction and collated in our parking standards document, which will identify which streets can be available for exemption. That would ensure that there is a consistency in assessment and implementation across the parking elements of this bill. The process of exempting streets will be set out in regulations that are made under section 44 of this bill.
John Mason
I wonder whether it would not have been easier for a council to list the streets where parking is not allowed on the pavement. Would it not be more onerous on the councils to list the streets where it is allowed on the pavement?
George Henry
From our discussions with local authorities, it was certainly felt that, because the number of streets that will be exempt will probably be lower than the number of streets where people parking on pavements is causing problems, the approach that we have taken was deemed to be an easier one for local authorities. They will promote exemptions on a smaller number of streets than they would if it were the other way around.
John Mason
To take a slightly different angle, there already is a ban on driving on pavements. I have always wondered about this because, clearly, if you put two wheels on the pavement, you are driving on the pavement. Is that not already banned?
George Henry
No, it is not. It is not illegal to park on a footway, as matters stand. It is illegal to drive on one and, granted, you have to drive on one to get your car there. Certainly, there is an issue with people parking on footways. It causes great difficulties for some road users, including vulnerable road users. That is why we are seeking to iron that problem out and make it clear that it is illegal to park on a footway.
John Mason
Moving on to the question of enforcement, I understand that in some areas it would be the council that would enforce. Am I right in saying that in some areas it would be the police that would enforce? In both cases, do they have to enforce? Would there be any penalty on a council that just ignores the new legislation and allows parking on pavements, or would there be some way to force the council or the police to enforce?
George Henry
The bill confers the powers for all 32 local authorities to enforce the new restrictions on pavement and double parking. It will be up to the local authority to identify how it wishes to carry out that enforcement but there is a commitment to an annual report that we will be putting before the Scottish Parliament to identify the successes of the bill or otherwise and identify which local authorities are carrying out their duties appropriately.
Richard Lyle
In my constituency, there are streets where the pavements are quite wide on both sides but, as John Mason said, the roads are quite narrow. There will be a problem in some areas with cul-de-sacs, where people can drive in but when they reach the hammerhead, the only way out is to reverse. Will councils have to consult regarding exemptions for pavements? Will they be able to amend the exemptions over the years? Will there be a system whereby the public—say people in a particular street—can contact or petition the council to amend and allow them to pavement park?
I welcome the bill, which will be good for people who are in wheelchairs and especially young families and people with prams. I abhor people parking on the pavement but, sadly, as John Mason said, there are occasions when you just cannot go anywhere else.
George Henry
Local authorities will undertake assessments under the provisions in the bill and, when identifying streets that can be exempt, they will be required to use our parking standards document. As I said, section 44 will confer on ministers the power to set out regulations for the process of exemptions. We are discussing that with local authorities at our parking stakeholder working group. We realise that there might be historic streets that do not necessarily lie within the criteria, and we will need to consider those as we go through the process. First and foremost, we are trying to fix irresponsible parking, but we want to work with local authorities, because they know their streets best, so that we can get the best model to fix the problem, support the policy and assist with parking provision for local authority streets.
The Convener
As part of my background reading, I looked at the document “Roads for All: Good Practice Guide for Roads”, which Transport Scotland published in July 2013, and which I am sure you know your way around absolutely. It lists footway widths and talks about ramps and blistering to allow people to identify crossover points. In light of the fact that on-street parking will be allowed in certain areas, will that document have to be rewritten so that people can move from one side of the road to the other in the situation that Richard Lyle mentioned, where it might be a requirement for people to park on pavements?
George Henry
That document will not need to be rewritten. We are working on a parking standards document with a range of stakeholders, including the local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Living Streets. We are working in partnership with them to discuss the footway widths where we can allow footway parking. The early discussions are that that would support the “Roads for All” guidance. For example, about 2m is the narrowest footway that we need. That would allow two wheelchairs or a double buggy to pass. As we develop the parking standards document with our stakeholders, we will very much take cognisance of “Roads for All” and work through it.
The Convener
My understanding is that, if there is a 2m-wide walkway on one side of a road, a 2m-wide walkway might not be needed on the other side, but good practice dictates that it should not be less than 1.5m. However, it does not stipulate whether that is on both sides or one side of the road.
George Henry
Yes, that is correct. We would look at that in working with local authorities. They are best placed to assess their streets and they know what is best for their areas. When a local authority is doing an assessment, it could allow a narrower footway on one side, provided that the crossing points remain free and that people can pass from one side of the street to the other as safely as possible.
Maureen Watt
Why does the bill not propose a ban on parking in front of dropped kerbs? That issue is particularly important for people who have mobility impairments.
George Henry
That certainly is a problem, and we are currently discussing with stakeholders which dropped kerbs could be in scope. When we are doing that, we will identify whether we can take that forward under secondary legislation. That is the current plan. Discussions have taken place. There will be a national ban on parking at known crossing points where there is tactile paving for the visually impaired, but we are looking to take that forward under secondary legislation.
Maureen Watt
So you need to distinguish between dropped kerbs that allow people to get their cars in front of their house and narrower bits where people with wheelchairs or buggies can cross.
George Henry
Yes. It is about identifying the difference between a crossing point and a domestic driveway. One of the big things that we have considered with stakeholders as we have worked through the policy is the impact of the displacement of vehicles. For instance, in many housing estates or streets, there are one-vehicle driveways but two or three-car families. There could be the opportunity for them to continue to park in front of their driveway. As long as the crossing points and known crossing points for wheelchair users or visually impaired people are still free, there will still be a safe mechanism for them to cross the street.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
We are all interested in effective legislation and we are certainly not interested in ineffective legislation. To me, section 47(6) as written could drive a coach and horses through the purposes of the bill as far as parking on paths is concerned. It states:
“The parking prohibitions do not apply where ... the motor vehicle is, in the course of business ... being used for the purpose of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or ... being loaded from or unloaded to any premises ... and the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading and in any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes.”
If we say,
“no more than ... 20 minutes”,
that will become the standard practice. In other words, the result that I see is that, if someone is trying to enforce the bill, people will say, “I’m allowed to park here for 20 minutes.” Then another vehicle will arrive to unload or collect goods, and the driver will think, “I can stay for 20 minutes.” Whereas the current law says that somebody has to be in a vehicle that is doing that—the driver, a passenger or somebody else—under the bill, they will be able to wander off.
I am concerned that footpaths will be blocked for vulnerable users, whether that is disabled people or mums and dads with prams. We are welcoming a bill to ensure that people do not park so that others can have free access but, to me, section 47 drives a coach and horses through the whole thing. If section 47(6)(c) just stopped at “loading or unloading” and we removed
“and in any event for no more than a ... period of 20 minutes”,
that would be helpful.
Jamie Greene
Why do you not try to amend it?
Mike Rumbles
I am coming to that. If the Government does not amend it, I certainly will try.
George Henry
We have been discussing that issue with stakeholders since the bill was published. You are right to point out that a delivery vehicle may park on a footway during its course of business while loading or unloading if it cannot reasonably be done without parking on a footway. Therefore, delivery drivers should first seek to find a parking space or loading bay, and only if they cannot find one can they park on the footway.
However, parking on a footway does not necessarily mean that they should be causing an obstruction. The current law is that drivers should not be causing an obstruction. We are looking to identify in the parking standards document what should be accepted or otherwise, but we are not promoting anybody blocking a footway to vulnerable users. We are trying to strike the balance between keeping pavements, footways and roads as safe as possible and allowing businesses to operate and keep the economy going.
10:00Mike Rumbles
We have the same interests. Everybody agrees with what you have just said—that is the aim. Our job is to look at problems with the proposed legislation that you present to us, and I have identified that as a really big problem. What you say is all very well but, in defence, a lawyer will turn round and say, “But the bill says people are allowed to stay here for 20 minutes. It does not say you have to allow a gap to allow somebody through; it says you can load or unload for 20 minutes, and in fact the next guy can do the same.” If we want to achieve the objective, section 47 needs to be rewritten.
George Henry
There is already primary legislation in place under which people are not allowed to cause an obstruction. The bill relates to issues less than obstruction and the other irresponsible parking methods that happen.
Mike Rumbles
Yes, but section 47(6) is a legal defence against prosecution. If I were a lawyer looking at this, I would say, “My goodness, people are not going to be prosecuted, because the law that is going to be passed will clearly allow them to do it.”
The Convener
The committee will have the chance to question other witnesses on that subject. All members probably have some sympathy with Mike Rumbles’s point. If the period is 20 minutes and someone sits in their lorry and moves it forward 1.5m, does that mean they are in a different parking space and therefore they are not causing an obstruction and the 20-minute period starts again? There are all sorts of valid questions here. It would be interesting for George Henry just to give a short answer and we will perhaps quiz more people on the issue as the evidence sessions continue.
George Henry
We are discussing the issue continually with stakeholders as part of the parking standards working group. To be clear, first and foremost, people need to try to find a car-parking space or loading bay to carry out that duty. It will be down to enforcement officers to enforce the measure efficiently and to ensure that people do not behave disreputably. I reiterate that there is current legislation that says that people should not cause an obstruction.
The Convener
I am sure that that would be easy to do where there are lots of parking enforcement officers, but it might be difficult in more remote places.
Richard Lyle
Does the bill also apply to car parks? We often go into a car park and somebody has paid the entrance fee or whatever but has stupidly parked on a pavement that is not a designated space. You might say that it is up to the company that owns the car park to do something about it. Does the bill cover that?
George Henry
No. The bill covers only on-street parking.
The Convener
Thank you for clarifying that.
I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
10:03 Meeting suspended.10:04 On resuming—
The Convener
In our third session this morning on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, we will look at road works, canals and regional transport partnerships. Tasha Geddie has sat through all three sessions, so I am not going to welcome her again, but I welcome Kat Quane, policy officer on road works; Joanne Gray, policy manager on regional transport partnerships; Chris Wilcock, head of ports, shipping, freight and canals; and Kevin Gibson and Claire McGill, who are both solicitors.
Colin Smyth
I will start by asking a question about road works. In what circumstances would you anticipate the Scottish road works commissioner using the proposed inspection powers within the bill?
Kat Quayne (Scottish Government)
I will outline the context in which the commissioner would use his inspection powers. At the moment, roads authorities can have an inspection regime for undertakers. The commissioner obviously has to look at both sectors—the roads authorities and the utilities—so he can look at either one. He can gather information, he can do specific site inspections and, at the moment, he has a limited range of compliance powers. He can issue fines, but he does not have any powers to address things on site as they arise or if there is a specific issue that needs a quick resolution. That would be the context for the use of inspection powers.
Colin Smyth
How will the compliance notice regime work in practice given the limited resources and powers of the commissioner?
Kat Quayne
A review of the Office of the Scottish Road Works Commissioner that Transport Scotland carried out in 2016 identified that he was limited in not having the powers to directly go and find evidence himself, and it identified that the office might have to be expanded to cover an inspection function. It would not necessarily be the commissioner himself who would go out and do inspections; he would need inspectors who would act for him.
Colin Smyth
How does the bill improve circumstances for disabled people when road works are being carried out? Are there any provisions in the bill that make improvements there? Also, am I right in saying that “Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice” is legally binding in the rest of the United Kingdom but is purely a code of practice in Scotland? Why is that the case and should it have been tackled in the bill?
Kat Quayne
That is absolutely right. The safety at street works code of practice is legally binding for roads authorities, highway authorities and undertakers in every other part of the UK. In Scotland, it applies only to the undertakers. I am not entirely sure of the history of why that is. Perhaps Kevin Gibson could answer, as that was before my time.
The bill puts the code on a statutory footing for roads authorities as well. There are also changes to the number of qualified operatives who are needed on a site and the type of qualification they need—the street works card, as we call it.
The Convener
You looked for help on that and Kevin Gibson almost looked away. Do you want to add anything?
Kevin Gibson (Scottish Government)
I cannot speak to the history of why the code is binding in England and Wales but not here. What I can say is that evidence of compliance with the code in Scotland is evidence that you have complied with the duties, so the converse is to some extent also the case—evidence that you have not complied with the code is evidence that you have not complied with the duties. The code has an element of a legal effect here but it is not completely binding as it is in England and Wales.
Colin Smyth
Is there a reason why we did not make the code binding as part of the bill?
Kat Quayne
The bill makes the red book, which is what we call the safety code, mandatory for roads authorities. The original safety code was endorsed by the Scottish Executive. It is a very old document. I do not know why that did not happen at the time, but the bill makes it applicable to roads authorities. The Health and Safety Executive enforces it in that way as well; that is the standard that it looks to.
John Mason
On regional transport partnership finance, I understand that, rather than the actual expenses being shared around the constituent councils, estimated costs will be used in future. Presumably, that would mean that, if expenses were slightly lower, there would be a fund left over and the partnership could carry that forward. What would happen if there were a deficit? Would the RTP carry the deficit forward or would that be dealt with in some different way?
Joanne Gray (Scottish Government)
At the moment, the bill does not provide for a deficit, and the RTPs do not carry a deficit. They are required to have a zero balance at the end of each financial year. Although in practice that seems quite difficult to achieve, what normally would happen is that any excess funds would be transferred to one of the constituent councils of a partnership and then come back to the partnership at the start of the following financial year.
John Mason
The funds are effectively lent to the council at the moment, or is that the future plan?
Joanne Gray
At the moment, the funds transfer to a particular council in an RTP and then come back. I do not know whether the transfer is a loan. I would not like to call it a loan.
John Mason
It is not that the money is handed back to, in Strathclyde’s case, the nine local authorities, and then we start again fresh in the new year. I am trying to clarify the difference between what is going to happen and what has happened in the past, but as I understand it the aim is to allow them to carry forward excess funds.
Joanne Gray
Yes. It is just to make it a little less clumsy than it is just now.
John Mason
I see.
Joanne Gray
It is just to create that extra flexibility, so that there is no transfer of funds. The funds will just sit where they are.
John Mason
The funds will be carried forward. Presumably, it is possible that RTPs will have a deficit because they have to overspend on the subway or something. In that case, will they then by 31 March have to get more money from the councils or could they carry that deficit forward and hope to make it up the following year?
Joanne Gray
Until now RTPs have not carried a deficit and we would not envisage that they would do so going forward. According to my local government finance colleagues, it is not good practice to carry a deficit. It has not happened up until now, so I cannot answer that question.
The Convener
Jamie, you had a question on this. Has what has been said sufficiently answered it?
Jamie Greene
Partially. Perhaps I could follow on from Mr Mason’s line of questioning on carrying over funds. I believe that the legislation will now enable regional transport partnerships to borrow money and by default, I suspect, accumulate debt as a result of the borrowing. Given that some of the other elements of the bill allow for greater opportunity, for example, to set up bus franchises and other types of public services, and given that RTPs are funded by local authorities, is there any worry that by giving RTPs the ability to borrow funds on the wider market, you are in effect creating an opportunity for local authorities to accumulate debt to fund infrastructure or subsidise public transport? What is the policy rationale behind that?
Joanne Gray
RTPs have had borrowing powers since the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. What the bill does is place more responsibility on them to comply with the regulations that came in in 2016. Until now we are not aware that there has been a problem with that. RTPs are required by a suite of local government finance regulations to ensure that they can afford whatever they borrow and, ultimately, they are accountable to their board, to their constituent councils and to Audit Scotland.
Jamie Greene
Are there any additional duties or changes in how RTPs will be structured, monitored and managed in future, or is the bill just tinkering around with the financials as opposed to the structures of RTPs? At any point was there any discussion around whether the bill could look at the wider issue of the success, or lack of success, of RTPs?
Joanne Gray
No, the bill does not look at that. It is really just a technical amendment to allow that flexibility. There are other pieces of work on-going at the moment, such as the national transport strategy review, that are looking at such issues and at the future of transport governance in Scotland.
The Convener
Mike Rumbles is itching to ask the next question.
Mike Rumbles
I am, convener, because I want to ask about canals. They may be at the end of this session, but they are very important. I am well aware of the work that has been done on canals running into the city here in Edinburgh and the canal festivals. They are regenerative of whole areas and it is a very positive thing that has been happening, but recently there have been problems when the canals have been blocked. In the bill, we have a section tinkering with the numbers on the board of Scottish Canals. Does the Government have any concerns about the backlog of maintenance? What about placing a duty on the board to ensure that our canals are kept open and navigable? This would be an opportunity to do that.
10:15Chris Wilcock (Scottish Government)
It is worth saying that what is in the bill is really a technical point to give ministers the flexibility to alter the structure of the board in the future if they chose to do so. When the board was set up, it was restricted to six members, mainly to take the organisation forward following separation in 2012. In discussions that we have had about some of the complexities and the opportunities facing the canals, it has been suggested that we might want to look at varying the position and creating flexibility to bring in additional expertise or indeed to reflect some of the expertise that the executive team might have. That is very much what we are looking to do in the bill.
In relation to the other things that you mentioned, the Transport Act 1962 and the Transport Act 1968 already set out how canals are supposed to operate, and they have provision on what Scottish Canals is supposed to do to keep the canals open to all users. We are working very closely with it in relation to the challenges that we have seen in recent times. Those have been partly addressed through some additional funding that Transport Scotland and the Scottish ministers have been able to give. We are also looking at how we can help Scottish Canals with funding on other areas in the future.
It is important to highlight that the work that Scottish Canals has done to identify the asset management backlog is a responsible piece of work. The assets are ageing and complex and it is important that Scottish Canals understands the work that it needs to do to make sure that the structures are there for the future.
Mike Rumbles
On a technical point, as I understand it there is no requirement in the 1962 act for the board to ensure that the canals are navigable. That is my question. Should we not be using the bill as an opportunity to give responsibility to the enlarged board for ensuring that Scottish canals are kept navigable?
Chris Wilcock
My understanding is that the existing legislation provides for a responsibility for the canals to be kept navigable.
Mike Rumbles
Does it?
Chris Wilcock
That is my understanding of how the legislation is now.
Mike Rumbles
Could the Government check that and let us know?
The Convener
It has been mentioned to various people that Scottish Canals is investing in properties such as holiday lettings and shops rather than investing in canals. It would be useful for the committee to have some feedback on that.
Chris Wilcock
Certainly, that point has been raised with us in our engagement with stakeholders, particularly in light of the challenge that we have at the moment. I have asked Scottish Canals to undertake a piece of work on this because the challenge has been put to it a number of times that it is spending money and attention on non-canal-related activities. It is important to note that the income that is generated from non-canal activities comes back in on an annual basis and grows the investment pot to support the canals going forward. I have asked Scottish Canals to do some work on that to make those points clearer to people, because I think that it is important that that is recognised.
The Convener
All businesses know that the core asset is what you invest in, not necessarily the ones that generate short-term income. I will leave it there if I may.
I thank all those who have given evidence this morning on the three panels. There are various questions that we did not get through, which is very much where I anticipated we would be at the end of the meeting. The clerks will, subject to everyone agreeing, submit those questions to Tasha Geddie, and we ask her to respond to them through the clerks.
I ask the officials to remain in place while we deal with the next item of business, because after that we will be moving into private session and it does not seem appropriate to break now.
12 September 2018
12 September 2018
19 September 2018
3 October 2018
24 October 2018
7 November 2018
21 November 2018
6 February 2019
What is secondary legislation?
Secondary legislation is sometimes called 'subordinate' or 'delegated' legislation. It can be used to:
- bring a section or sections of a law that’s already been passed, into force
- give details of how a law will be applied
- make changes to the law without a new Act having to be passed
An Act is a Bill that’s been approved by Parliament and given Royal Assent (formally approved).
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
This committee looks at the powers of this Bill to allow the Scottish Government or others to create 'secondary legislation' or regulations.
It met to discuss the Bill in public on:
23 October 2018:
Read the Stage 1 report by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform committee published on 6 November 2018.
Finance and Constitution Committee
- the costs of the Bill
- whether there has been enough information provided about the costs
The committee questioned the Scottish Government team that looks at the costs of the Bill on 14 November 2018:
Debate on the Bill
A debate for MSPs to discuss what the Social Security (Scotland) Bill aims to do and how it'll do it.
Stage 1 debate transcript
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-16747, in the name of Michael Matheson, on stage 1 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
14:54The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
I welcome the opportunity to consider the stage 1 report on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which is an ambitious and broad piece of legislation covering a wide range of issues. The bill aims to help develop a cleaner, smarter and more accessible system for the travelling public across Scotland, and it will empower local transport authorities and others to improve journeys for the travelling public.
Members who have monitored the bill’s progress will know that it is wide ranging and aspirational but also technical and complex in some areas. Such a mix can make scrutiny challenging. I commend the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for the diligent way that it has undertaken stage 1 consideration. The extensive range of voices and viewpoints from across civic Scotland that the committee has heard from is testament to its accommodating and meticulous approach to the matter.
I welcome the lead committee’s support for the general principles of the bill and its recommendation to Parliament that it should agree to those general principles. I look forward to saying more in the course of the debate about the Government’s thinking on some of the matters that are raised in the report.
The bill’s provisions range from measures to improve bus patronage, including smart ticketing, to improving air quality in our cities, increasing the safety and efficiency of road works and addressing parking issues. It also makes some necessary technical improvements to specific areas. For example, it will ensure more appropriate financial flexibility and governance arrangements for some public bodies. In developing the bill, a collaborative approach has been taken to ensure that its measures are informed by those that they will affect. We fully intend that that engagement will continue as we develop the associated regulations.
More widely, it is crucial that we see the bigger picture and how the bill fits into it. The legislation is part of a broader transport jigsaw and must be viewed in that wider context. Although matters such as low-emission zones, an improved framework for our bus services and prohibitions on irresponsible parking will benefit many, they should not be seen in isolation. In addition to the bill, a host of other non-legislative work is going on across my portfolio to drive improvement, not least of which is our review of the national transport strategy. That wide-ranging review has involved extensive public engagement across Scotland. It is forward looking and will provide the high-level strategic and policy framework within which the measures in the bill will play out. I expect to issue a draft of the new strategy for consultation later this year.
We anticipate that the strategy will set the context for any future consideration of legislation, beyond the current measures proposed in the bill. The need for such a wider strategic perspective is something that the lead committee has raised in relation to low-emission zones. We have always been clear that LEZs have the potential to interact with a host of other transport issues, be that congestion, active travel, the improved feel of community space or the uptake of ultra-low-emission vehicles. It is in that vein that local authorities should be looking to implement such zones. The Scottish Government is aiding local authorities in that, not least by setting the strategic context that I just mentioned. Future LEZ guidance will also help to set the measures in that context, and we are taking other practical action to make our transport system cleaner, greener and healthier and to improve air quality.
I am therefore pleased that we seem to have wide political support for the principles of LEZs. Helpfully, there has been some fruitful discussion during stage 1 about the specifics that will be set out in subsequent regulations. That has covered issues such as penalty levels, the national emission standard and exemptions. Such feedback builds on the extensive engagement that the Government is having on those issues, which is running in tandem with the bill’s progression.
There have also been questions as to whether specifics on such issues should be set out in the bill. It is worth remembering that LEZs are a new provision in Scotland. The flexibility afforded by secondary legislation is therefore necessary, as it allows proper engagement on development of the detail and an ability to respond to technological changes. I will reflect carefully on the comments of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, as the lead committee, and those of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of those measures.
I turn to the bus provisions in the bill. When it comes to improving air quality, buses are part of the solution, and measures to incentivise bus services should be an intrinsic part of the wider proposals around modal shift in LEZ areas and beyond. The bill offers an ambitious new model for bus provision. The trend of declining bus patronage threatens networks across the country and we must work together to address that. However, the trend varies across Scotland, as do the causes, and I am clear that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. The bill gives local authorities options to improve bus services in their areas, which will ensure that there are sustainable bus networks across Scotland. The bill will support local authorities to meet local needs, whether they wish to pursue partnership working or local franchising or, in certain circumstances, run their own buses.
On that last issue, I am aware that there have been calls for us to widen our proposal for local authorities to run commercially competitive services. As I have previously stated, I will continue to listen to views on that as we move towards stage 2. The bill will also improve the information on bus services that is available to passengers, which will help them to plan their journeys. That will make bus travel more accessible and attractive, and we know that people want it.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is willing to look at the issue of local authorities running commercially profitable routes, but will he outline what he thinks the objections are?
Michael Matheson
The member will be aware that there are concerns in the bus industry about the impact that that could have on existing bus operators, as well as about the commercial viability of some routes. However, as I said, I am open to considering further measures that could help to improve bus services at a local level, including the issue that the member has raised, which was also highlighted by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
As well as clear information about bus services, passengers expect a simple ticketing offer. The bill will help to accelerate the implementation of smart ticketing and will support local authorities and operators to go further and faster to deliver multimodal smart ticketing arrangements, underpinned by consistent national standards. The Government is clear that partnership working between authorities and operators to address local ticketing needs is the most effective approach in a deregulated bus market. I am aware that there was support for that approach among various witnesses who appeared before the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee during its stage 1 deliberations.
I turn to the parking provisions in the bill. I am sure that we all want to ensure that our pavements and roads are accessible for all, particularly those with mobility considerations. It is therefore welcome that there appears to be cross-party support for the principle of pavement and double parking prohibitions in the bill. There was some debate at stage 1 about specifics, such as the process for exempting streets, and exemption criteria for delivery vehicles. The Government has sought to strike a sensible balance on such details. We are still listening to people’s views, and I am sure that we will hear more views this afternoon.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
There are quite a lot of streets in our cities where there is not enough room for everything that we would like to do. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, if the pavements are fairly wide and the roads are fairly narrow, it makes sense for cars to park with two wheels on the pavement?
Michael Matheson
I recognise that. Some city streets are too narrow for vehicles to park on both sides of the road and, at the same time, for vehicles to pass through. It is in recognition of that problem that the bill’s provisions would allow local authorities to exempt particular areas from the prohibition.
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
If, as the bill states, exemptions to parking prohibitions are to be made by local authorities, will they consult their local communities to come to an agreement that is best for all?
Michael Matheson
There is a provision for local authorities to undertake that process, which would include consulting local communities and other important partners such as emergency services, which have a clear interest in those matters, to ensure that they can express their views on that type of exemption process.
I am also grateful for the lead committee’s reflections that our provisions on road works
“will provide a positive framework and improve ... quality, safety and performance”,
and for its endorsement of our proposals to give regional transport partnerships more flexibility.
On the issue of canals, in our response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government has set out the wider measures that we are taking forward to improve such waterways, in addition to the provisions that are contained in the bill.
Workplace parking levies are not currently in the bill, but they have attracted significant interest in recent weeks. The Government has given a commitment to support an agreed Green Party amendment at stage 2 to create a discretionary power for local authorities to introduce those levies should they wish to do so. Our support for that amendment is contingent on the exclusion of hospitals and national health service premises. It will be a local levy and it will be a matter for local authorities to decide whether they wish to consider introducing it in their areas in future. There will be no pressure from the Scottish Government to do so.
The Scottish Government recognises that the lead committee will wish to give itself adequate time at stage 2 to scrutinise such an amendment, including by taking evidence from stakeholders. We will support the committee in whichever way we can to accommodate that requirement.
I have cantered through a range of topics, which highlights the multitude of areas that the bill touches on. I look forward to hearing the views of members from across the chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
The Presiding Officer
I call Edward Mountain to open on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
15:07Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute to the debate in my capacity as the convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
The committee’s stage 1 report on the Transport (Scotland) Bill was published on 7 March. I thank the cabinet secretary for his letter of 1 April, in which he provided the Scottish Government’s response to those recommendations.
In the limited time available, I will be able to cover only a brief selection of the issues that the committee raised in its report. It is unfortunate that we have less time available to debate the wide range of detailed and complex transport issues that the bill covers than we had last week to discuss the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill—a single-issue bill on which there was broad support across the Parliament.
The committee is aware that the Scottish Government has announced—it has reaffirmed this today—that it will support at stage 2 a Scottish Green Party amendment on the granting of powers to local authorities to introduce a workplace parking levy. The committee has agreed a timetable for stage 2 consideration that will allow us to take oral evidence on the full details of the amendment once it has been lodged. However, for the purposes of this debate, it is right that we park that issue—if members will excuse the pun—and discuss the many issues that appear in the bill as it is drafted.
Moving on to the committee’s consideration of the bill, I thank all those who gave up their time to give evidence at committee meetings and to attend conference calls. I thank those who attended an evening committee event in the Parliament and those who sent the many written submissions to the committee. I also thank the clerks, who supported the committee with professionalism at a time of a very heavy workload and a shortage of team members.
I will look specifically at the proposals in the bill, starting with low-emission zones. The committee is of the view that the effective introduction of low-emission zones will require steps to be taken in advance to provide improvements in public transport and to put in place measures such as park-and-ride facilities and improved active travel opportunities. In its response, the Scottish Government indicated that it agrees with the committee on that point and that such issues will be addressed in the LEZ guidance. We believe that that is welcome. The introduction of LEZs must be part of a co-ordinated package of measures if the behavioural change that is required is to be achieved.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s agreement with the committee’s recommendation that national consistent emission standards and exemptions should be set out in the regulations. I note that the emission standards are likely to be Euro 6 for diesel and Euro 4 for petrol. I also note that the Scottish Government agrees with the committee that nationally consistent signage should be used for all LEZs.
Finally on LEZs, the committee acknowledges in its report the financial burden that might be faced by businesses and individual motorists should they need to upgrade or replace vehicles to meet the necessary emission standards. It noted that that would be likely to present a particular challenge to those on lower incomes.
I note that the Scottish Government will create a low-emission zone support fund that will target commercial and private vehicle owners who will have the most difficulty in making the transition to LEZ-compliant vehicles. That is welcome and, in my view, it is necessary if we are to incentivise road users to comply with LEZs.
In its report, the committee acknowledged the widespread concern about the decline in bus use across Scotland. However, the committee notes the concerns that were expressed by several stakeholders in evidence that the bus service provisions in the bill are unlikely to make a marked difference in stopping the decline in bus use. The committee is concerned that, although many of those provisions are broadly considered to be positive steps, the reality may be that few of them will be taken up in practice due to the lack of financial resources to facilitate their set-up and operation.
The Scottish Government clearly disagrees with that view. Although I understand that it wants to remain positive about the proposals in the bill, the broad message that the committee received from local authorities and others was that the proposals are underwhelming and are unlikely to deliver any significant improvement. I am sure that other committee members will comment further on the bus service provisions.
On smart ticketing, the committee is concerned that the provisions to introduce a national smart ticketing standard lack ambition and that an opportunity has been missed to deliver a meaningful step change in integrated public transport. On the basis of the evidence that it heard, the committee is of the view that that can be achieved only through the introduction of a single ticketing scheme operating across all modes of transport.
The Scottish Government responded robustly on that issue, effectively ruling out such a scheme on the ground of cost, with an assertion that it would require a restructuring of the bus market. However, it was made clear to the committee that progress in that area among transport operators has been painfully slow. It remains to be seen whether, if the bill is passed, the proposals within it will result in any tangible progress being made.
Although the committee welcomes the proposals to prohibit pavement parking and double parking, it expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the exemption, which will allow 20 minutes for loading and unloading deliveries. It therefore called on the Scottish Government to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to remove the exemption and for a more appropriate and workable mechanism to be developed and included in guidance. The Government said that it considers that removing the exemption would enable loading and unloading for an unspecified and unlimited length of time. Technically, that might be the case, but that does not respond to the committee’s concerns that the exemption proposals, as drafted, would present innumerable practical and enforcement difficulties. I urge the cabinet secretary to rethink his position on that matter before stage 2.
During its stage 1 scrutiny, the committee discussed the issue of parking across dropped kerbs at pedestrian and other recognised crossing places. The committee felt that that is a
“significant ... barrier to the accessibility of urban streets”.
The committee has therefore called on
“the Scottish Government to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to prohibit”
that practice. It is encouraging that the Scottish Government is currently considering the most appropriate legislative route for addressing the issue. Nevertheless, I urge it to accelerate its considerations and to lodge a suitable amendment to complete what would be a welcome package of parking prohibitions
“which would more comprehensively enhance accessibility in urban areas.”
In the time available, I have been able only to skim the surface of the many issues that are covered in the committee’s stage 1 report. I hope that my fellow committee members will take the opportunity to discuss further elements of the report when they make their contributions.
The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill be agreed to. However, we look forward to stage 2 consideration of the many proposals that we have made for its improvement.
15:16Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to open the stage 1 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I add my thanks to the clerks and my fellow committee members, many of whom are in the chamber today. I also thank the many stakeholders whom I have met over the past few months, who have shared their views and opinions on the bill, including the transport secretary and his team, who have been very helpful in those discussions.
Since the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed, more people own and operate cars, we have seen a decrease in the patronage of our buses and the emergence of the gig economy has changed our driving habits and our economy. Equally, since 2005, there has been a renewed focus on our domestic and international obligations to tackle climate change.
At the outset, I say that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1. We agree with the general principles of what the bill is trying to achieve, although in many ways we do not think that the bill goes far enough to tackle many of the overarching issues that are faced by Scotland’s transport networks.
If someone is watching the debate and hoping to hear us discuss a groundbreaking, flagship piece of legislation that the Government has introduced, which will transform how Scotland is connected, or how the bill will radically address shortcomings in rail, road, bus, marine or aviation travel, or how the Parliament intends to revolutionise how we transport goods, people, or produce, they are welcome to stay tuned, but they may wish to change channels.
Overall, as it is currently drafted, the bill tinkers with existing legislation and proposes fairly benign new powers. It is all very necessary perhaps, but it does not exactly push the limits of policy imagination. It contains little on long-term plans to improve community travel and transport, particularly among our elderly populations and rural communities, little that develops sustainable non-concessionary travel frameworks, or anything that proposes to deliver dramatic improvements to our railways or ferries, or a radical overhaul of the state of Scotland’s roads.
That being said, and in order to be constructive, let me set out my thoughts on the bill. Part 1 of the bill deals with low-emission zones. We think that poor air quality remains an issue in our cities—it lowers life expectancy and it puts huge pressures on our health service. In those respects, we agree that there is a need for LEZs. However, significant issues have been raised about the current proposal. The committee took evidence on the issue and a number of the stakeholders with whom I have had private consultations are rightfully concerned, not least those who will be least likely to be able to afford to upgrade to new Euro 6 standard-compliant diesel cars, and not least those small businesses that need vans, which are often purchased rather than leased, to go about their business. Those who live outside the cities, in rural Scotland, who often drive diesel or agricultural vehicles and sweat their assets for longer than people who live in the cities, are also concerned. What about people who find themselves living in a zone, who will be penalised simply for going about their everyday business, taking the kids to school or commuting to work?
If public transport was universally perfect, there would be no need for a car. In an ideal world there would be no need for low-emission zones, but we live in the real world. Businesses are concerned, and we ought to listen to them. Industries, such as the bus and taxi industries, have raised concerns about the costs of operating within the zones and of purchasing compliant vehicles. An electric-powered taxi costs £60,000. The committee’s stage 1 report makes explicit reference to that. It says:
“LEZs should not be introduced unless appropriate steps are taken in advance to provide improvements in public transport provision and to put in place measures such as park and ride facilities and improved active travel opportunities”.
I agree, but that is not what it says in the bill.
Conservative members want to see some clarity about national standards. Let us leave the geography and operating hours at the local level, but let us avoid the confusion for business of having multiple distinct schemes, with conflicting standards. We would like to see a clear timetable for the introduction of the schemes, with phased implementation, to allow everybody the time to plan and transition to the new world. We would like to see appropriate incentives to encourage the take-up of ULEVs and LEZ-compliant vehicles.
Let us have a proper look at exemptions. Is it wise for disabled people, blue badge holders or other vulnerable travellers to have to pay to make vital journeys into cities for health appointments or to tackle social isolation? There must be support for residents within the LEZs, and public transport opportunities within the zones should be enhanced. We may seek to lodge amendments to that effect.
As the bill has progressed, other topics have not gained as much media attention as LEZs and parking, but they are nonetheless important. Local bus franchising is one example. There is a role for local franchising models, but that decision should not be made by anyone other than the local authority—the local authority must be fully transparent and open with local taxpayers about how their money is spent. However, I share concerns that the provision will allow them to operate only where there is an unmet need. That is severely limiting. I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary address that in his opening remarks.
In reality, how many local authorities have the money to set up depots, lease buses, hire drivers and pay into pension pots? Even if they have the money to do that, what will happen when a commercial operator comes along and says that they, too, want to operate on that route? There are many unanswered questions about the bill in that respect, and the main question is whether the bill goes far enough on local franchising.
There are some good initiatives on smart ticketing, such as the standardisation of technical standards. That is wise, but it falls dramatically short of introducing a fully interconnected ticketing network, the likes of which many countries benefit from. That is what we need, and the Government has missed a trick.
There is not much to disagree with on the issue of road works. We heed the committee’s warnings that local authority finance and resource remain a significant barrier to ensuring compliance.
One contentious issue that has arisen is pavement and double parking. We know that pavement parking is an issue in Scotland. It affects people who use our pavements; people with disabilities, people with pushchairs and people in wheelchairs or who are visually impaired can struggle to get past cars that are parked inappropriately. Equally, pavement parking is a widespread practice, which, as John Mason suggested, is a necessity on many roads. We have not talked enough about displacement: if the cars are moved off the pavement and on to the roads, where do they go?
I hear that there will be powers for local authorities to exempt roads, but how many of them have done the necessary mapping exercise, and how much time and resource do they have to do that? I do not think that the bill’s top-down approach is right.
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
I am sorry, but I have very limited time.
The best approach would be to empower local authorities to ban the practice of pavement parking where it needs to be stopped. It is all about empowering local authorities, which know their streets and communities best. The top-down approach is not the right one.
It is a shame that we do not have more time to debate the bill. In the closing seconds of my speech, I need to talk about the workforce parking levy—it would be remiss of me not to do so. I campaigned vociferously for the levy to be brought into the bill at stage 1, so that evidence could be taken and added to the stage 1 report. The Conservatives’ view is very simple: it is an ill-thought-through, regressive tax on Scotland’s workforce and we will oppose it at every stage of proceedings.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Will Jamie Greene take an intervention on that point?
Jamie Greene
I will not.
There is a lot to be positive about in the bill. We will take a constructive approach to amendments. However, there are several elements of the bill that need improvement. The stage 1 report was robust and in depth. I look forward to progressing the bill through Parliament and to taking part in constructive debates on it. I will listen to today’s speeches with great interest.
15:24Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
I ask members to imagine a transport system in which our transport agencies have the powers properly to regulate public transport in their areas and to deliver a genuinely integrated system; in which local communities can establish municipal bus companies without restrictions, putting passengers and not profit first, and reinvesting surpluses in better bus services and not shareholders’ dividends; and in which a person can board a bus and use their bank card to buy a ticket for that bus journey and the connecting train journey, through a system that calculates the cheapest fare, however many times they make the journey that week.
Members can imagine all those things, but the bill will not deliver any of them. The bill’s timidness is matched only by the timidness of the Scottish Government’s response to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report. The cabinet secretary made clear in his opening speech that the response represented just the start of the Government’s thinking on changes to the bill, rather than its final word. I welcome that. Our stage 1 report captured a range of views from many stakeholders, which deserve to be properly considered as the bill progresses through the parliamentary process.
There are aspects of the bill that I welcome. I am glad that the Scottish Government has set out a legislative framework for low-emission zones, proposed a ban on pavement and double parking and proposed an increase in the powers of the Scottish road works commissioner. I am glad that, after opposing not one but two Labour members’ bills on the subject, the Government plans to introduce some element of regulation to our bus network.
However, on too many counts, the bill lacks ambition. The mandatory minimum grace period for LEZs—and the length of the maximum period—and the lack of a clear definition of LEZ could slow down the change that is needed if we are to tackle air pollution. The loopholes in the ban on pavement parking, such as allowing 20 minutes for delivery and loading, risk undermining the aims entirely.
On buses, the bill tinkers around the edges of a failed deregulated system while our bus network is being dismantled, route by route, across Scotland. Since the Scottish National Party came to power, the number of bus journeys made in Scotland has fallen by 20 per cent and bus fares have risen by 17 per cent in real terms. There are many reasons for that decline, such as changing work patterns and growing congestion, but decisions that this Government has made have contributed.
The bus service operators grant has been reduced by 28 per cent under the SNP.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The member describes falling patronage and so on. Can he give us the equivalent numbers for bus patronage and Government support in Wales, where Labour is in power?
Colin Smyth
I can tell Mr Stevenson that there has been an 8 per cent fall in Scotland in the past few years, whereas the rate was 5 per cent in the rest of the United Kingdom. The important point is that the bill will do nothing whatever to reverse that decline. Mr Stevenson agrees with that point, because it is in the REC Committee report to which he agreed.
Another factor that has contributed to the fall in bus use has been the cuts to council budgets in recent years, which are leading to yet more reductions in support for bus services in Scotland. The bill will do nothing to reverse the decline in bus passenger numbers, and it will do nothing to drive up standards in the sector or strengthen passengers’ rights and workers’ terms and conditions.
The bill will not improve affordability or tackle transport poverty. It will not properly promote community transport. Crucially, it will not lift the ban that Margaret Thatcher introduced, which prevents local authorities from competing to run bus services. The limited measures on franchising and partnership are welcome, but we need radical changes to how buses are run in Scotland, to protect the lifeline services that are currently being axed and to stop the big bus companies simply cherry picking the most profitable routes.
That means allowing our local councils to set up and run local bus companies, to meet their communities’ needs, without the restrictions that the bill will place on them. It means ensuring that changes to bus routes will be allowed only after proper consultation with passengers and with the agreement of the traffic commissioner for Scotland.
It means putting a stop to the race to the bottom in how staff are treated. If a company wants to receive public money for delivering services, it should pay its workers a decent wage and deliver proper terms and conditions.
It means ending rip-off fares. It means not just setting up an advisory board on smart ticketing, but giving that board a legally binding remit to deliver a single ticketing scheme across Scotland and across transport modes.
It means properly investing in our buses, not imposing a £230 million real-terms cut in the council budgets that are needed to make that investment, as the Government’s recent budget does. If we believe, as Labour does, that public transport is a public service, and if we really want to improve our environment, we need to properly fund public transport.
What will not protect our environment are the proposals for a so-called workplace parking levy, particularly given that the proposals are an afterthought and are being introduced at stage 2.
John Finnie
Was that the member’s position when his councillor colleagues in Glasgow City Council and City of Edinburgh Council had such a proposal as part of their local authority manifestos?
Colin Smyth
The Parliament needs to make a decision first, because one of my deep concerns is that, under the proposals, if a car parking tax was introduced by City of Edinburgh Council, as Mr Finnie suggests, thousands of workers, including my constituents who live in Midlothian, the Borders, South Lanarkshire and Dumfries and Galloway, many of whom are on low incomes and are priced out of the Edinburgh housing market, even if they wanted to live there, would have to pay the tax because they would have no choice but to use their car to get to work. However, they and their local councillors would not have a say in whether the tax was introduced in Edinburgh, and not a penny raised would be spent on public transport in Midlothian or the south of Scotland. That is a flaw in Mr Finnie’s proposals, and I hope that we will eventually be able to see the proposals that are currently being hidden from us by the Government.
The budget deal that has been done means that someone on £124,000 a year will get a cut in their income tax at the same time as a regressive car parking charge is introduced. A company boss will pay the same amount as a company cleaner will pay, and the chief executive of a health board who is on more than £100,000 a year will be exempt, but a carer who is working in a hospice and is on the living wage will have to stump up the money.
I will quote what the trade unions have said about the proposals, so Mr Finnie might want to listen. It is no wonder that Unison says that the tax
“devalues council workers and other staff, who deliver vital services”.
It is no wonder that the GMB says that
“it’s an attack on the take home pay of workers”.
It is no wonder that Unite says that it is a
“desperate attempt to absolve the government from the funding crisis they have presided over”.
It is no wonder that the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen says that
“it’s a burden on workers”.
I make no apologies for being on the side of workers, because they are being forgotten by the SNP and the Greens. Labour will oppose the workplace parking levy, which would simply allow the rich to pay to pollute.
In supporting the principles of the bill today, we serve notice that we plan to lodge a series of amendments to improve the bill, some of which I will cover in my closing speech at the end of the debate. When we lodge our amendments, I hope that the Government will move beyond its response to the REC Committee’s stage 1 report and work across Parliament to make the very significant improvements that the bill needs.
15:32John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
As colleagues have done, I thank the people who have contributed to the bill—the witnesses, our staff and the many organisations that have provided briefings. At decision time, the Scottish Green Party will support the general principles of the bill.
A transport bill should be seen as an opportunity and should provide a longer-term vision. It should provide policy coherence not just within but beyond the transport portfolio. However, I get no sense that the Scottish Government is crusading in that regard.
The cabinet secretary said that the bill is “aspirational” and he talked about a “transport jigsaw”, but I prefer the approach of the Poverty Alliance Scotland and Oxfam, which posed the question what would an ideal transport system look like. Some of the provisions in the bill would clearly contribute to an ideal transport system, but we are way short of achieving such a system. This is a piecemeal bill that is conservative in outlook and will be amended.
The cabinet secretary mentioned a new national transport strategy, which is welcome. I look forward to seeing it: I am sure that there will be a lot of interesting contributions in it. Transform Scotland’s submission on the bill talked about the opportunities to address, for example, congestion, which all my colleagues acknowledge is an issue. What does not affect congestion is the means of propulsion of a vehicle. Everyone was enthusiastic about replacing petrol with diesel, and then replacing diesel with electricity, but that is not the answer.
In the bill’s policy memorandum, the Scottish Government says that
“Transport is a key facilitator for societal improvement and cohesion, therefore the Bill will have a positive impact on the Scottish Government’s purpose to create a more successful country”.
I say, on the basis of the bill that is in front of us, that that is a significant leap, because far too many of our transport policies reinforce the status quo. Under the bill, the market will still prevail when it comes to bus transport. It will be a case of private profit and public penalty, with hard-pressed local authorities being able to pick up only the scraps.
Road building is the transport priority of the Scottish Government and other parties. That is part of the on-going concession to the motoring lobby. If we concede to the motoring lobby, we ignore the needs of the 30 per cent of households who do not own a motor car. We know from the Scottish Government’s facts and figures in the policy memorandum that buses contribute about 5 per cent of road transport emissions, whereas cars contribute 60 per cent of them. We know, too, that three quarters of public transport journeys in Scotland are undertaken by bus.
Much is made of Lothian Buses. I am delighted that it now has its 100-seat buses on the go. Because the company is publicly owned and run, the beneficiaries of Lothian Buses are the residents of the city of Edinburgh and the surrounding areas. Buses are vital in enabling people to go to work, school, college, hospital or the shops, or to visit friends and family. As has been said, people face cuts to routes, poor services and fare hikes.
Patronage has been declining for decades, so it would be entirely wrong to lay all the blame at the door of the present Government. Bus use has been going down since the 1960s, and mention has been made of many of the reasons for that. Transport Scotland—that was a Freudian slip; Transform Scotland cites the KPMG research on the decline in bus patronage, which talks about congestion and its impact on journey times, reliability and cost; the impact of parking; lifestyle changes, which have been mentioned by others; the relatively low cost of car use; and the decline in revenue for the bus industry from the Government and the rising costs.
Bus priority measures and low-emission zones would help. There has been negative talk about low-emission zones, but there has been little talk of the 40,000 lives in the UK that are lost every year as a direct result of poor air quality. Poor air quality is not a problem only in the centres of our major cities. I constantly remind residents in Inverness, where I live, that one of its streets has such poor air quality that it has to be constantly monitored. Therefore, it is clear that the idea of encouraging more people to drive into towns and cities does not make sense. Progressive countries are seeking to have vibrant town centres in which the motor car does not rule, and in which people can live, work and enjoy themselves.
When it comes to the workplace parking levy proposal, there is a danger that we could get bogged down in discussing hypotheticals. We have already heard rank hypocrisy from two of the parties in Parliament on the issue, and I dare say that that is likely to continue.
The example of bus use in Edinburgh is a very fine model. Edinburgh bucks the trend in many respects—it does so not just in relation to ownership, innovation and the range of routes and services that are available, but in relation to the nature of the passengers who use the buses. In other parts of Scotland, buses are used by poor people and cars are used by people who have money. That is why assistance has been given to the motoring industry for decade after decade, at the expense of the bus industry. We know that, in Edinburgh, a wide range of people use the bus network.
The Poverty Alliance and Oxfam talk about the critical role that transport plays in the lives of people who experience poverty, both in supporting their ability to increase their income and in representing a significant and important cost. Affordability is important.
The bill has many positive aspects, but it lacks ambition. The Scottish Green Party will seek to inject some ambition at stage 2.
15:38Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
I state at the outset that I believe that the Transport (Scotland) Bill is important, and the Liberal Democrats will support it at decision time.
The Government has great intentions. In the bill, it tries to address some major transport issues, including the introduction of low-emission zones, the state of our bus services, national ticketing arrangements and banning of pavement parking. What it does not do—so far—is address the contentious issue of a workplace parking charge. As we have heard, that is missing from the bill.
John Finnie
Will Mike Rumbles give way?
Mike Rumbles
Oh, come on! I am only 30 seconds into my speech.
We are told by the Government that the issue will be considered at stage 2, even if it was not considered at the important stage 1 evidence-gathering sessions.
John Finnie rose—
Mike Rumbles
I will be more than happy to give way, but not just yet.
I turn first to low-emission zones. If we are serious about creating effective low-emission zones in our cities, we must ensure that steps are taken to improve public transport provision in the areas that would be affected before the zones are introduced. Although the Government agrees with that, it has basically said, “Over to you, local authorities.”
We must also ensure that there is consistency across the country on which vehicles may enter an LEZ, in order to avoid confusion and to encourage compliance with regulations. I am pleased that the Government accepted that point in its response to the committee’s stage 1 report.
I now turn to the actions that will be needed in the bill to arrest the general decline in bus use. Contrary to what Mr Finnie says, it is not just poor people who use buses; I use buses every day. Lots of people use buses, not just the poor.
John Finnie
Will the member give way on that point?
Mike Rumbles
I will not, just now.
The bill should be a great opportunity to tackle decline in bus use. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the cabinet secretary that the Government has been ambitious on the matter. I agree with John Finnie that it is not exactly a “crusading” bill.
On one hand, the Government wishes to amend the Transport Act 1985 to allow local authorities to set up their own bus services. On the face of it, that is a very good idea. However, on the other hand, we are in the curious position in which the Government is saying to our local authorities, “You can set up your own bus company, but there aren’t any more resources available for you to do it, and by the way, you can only run your buses on unprofitable routes.” If those routes were to become profitable, the authorities would have to hand them over to commercial bus companies. What local authority is going to do that? We asked the question in committee and we are still waiting to hear an answer. I cannot see any local authority taking up that offer.
In our view, that is a missed opportunity. The proposal in the bill looks good, but on detailed examination it appears that nothing will change—to paraphrase someone else. Franchising seems to offer a better way forward. However, I am not convinced about the need for an independent panel to oversee local transport authorities. Local democratic control of the process is important, and I am not convinced that an additional hoop for local authorities to jump through is the right approach.
In the short time that is left to me, I will focus on the part of the bill that deals with pavement parking and on the as yet unseen proposal for a workplace parking charge.
The ban on pavement parking is most welcome. However, I have real concerns that the Government has provided a get-out clause in section 47(6)(c), on “Exceptions to parking provisions”, which will for the first time make it legal to obstruct the pavement, for a period of 20 minutes, when loading and unloading. That one provision means that in reality, the attempt to ban obstruction of our pavements will be hopelessly ineffective.
Jamie Greene
Is it therefore Lib Dem policy that there should be no exemptions to the ban on double parking? If so, how on earth is Mike Rumbles expecting to get in and out of taxis?
Mike Rumbles
I am talking about obstruction of pavements.
In our report, the committee makes it clear that it is concerned that the
“20 minutes for loading and unloading of deliveries may have the unintended consequence of creating a national exemption for pavement parking by commercial vehicles.”
Can people imagine how it would be impossible to enforce the law when vehicles are allowed to load and unload like that? In our view, the proposed exemption makes a mockery of the intention behind that provision, so I urge the Government to think again.
Michael Matheson
Can Mike Rumbles clarify whether his view is that there should be no exemption at all or that the 20-minute period is too long for the exemption?
Mike Rumbles
The evidence that we have received in committee is that whatever amount of time is put in the bill, it will be impossible to enforce. At the moment, the law says that vehicles cannot obstruct the pavement.
Michael Matheson
So, does Mike Rumbles want a ban?
Mike Rumbles
That is exactly right. However, if the minister wants to say that there could be an exemption if a certain amount of space was left on the pavement, that would be another matter.
I want to address the unique situation we are in in respect of the proposed workplace parking levy. The Scottish Government will whip its MSPs to support an amendment to the bill that its MSPs have not even seen.
John Finnie
Will the member give way?
Mike Rumbles
I would love to, if I had time.
The Presiding Officer
I am afraid that there is not much time—you have a minute left, tops, Mr Rumbles.
Mike Rumbles
I am sorry, but I cannot take an intervention, as I am in my last minute.
No member of the committee has seen such an amendment, and I understand that not even the Green MSPs have seen it, although it is a Green proposal.
The fact is that the majority of members—that is, all the Scottish National Party and Green members—have been told that they must vote for the amendment when it eventually comes to the committee. No matter what evidence is presented, no matter what drafting problems might be found and no matter what unintended consequences might be seen as a result of detailed scrutiny of the legislation, it will just be voted through by the committee.
I have a lot of respect for the cabinet secretary—I consider him to be a responsible minister, and I do not blame him for something that has been foisted on him—but that is no way to pass legislation. A responsible Government would not behave in that way. I never thought that our strong committee system, as established in 1999, would ever end up being misused in such a way.
The Presiding Officer
We now enter the open part of the debate. I call Stewart Stevenson, to be followed by Peter Chapman.
15:45Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I declare my honorary presidency of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, which has a keen interest in the topic before us.
I will start with the Labour Party’s desire for perhaps every council in Scotland to take over the running of bus services and some of the financial implications of such a move. I have previously talked about the financial implications of Labour’s proposals for bus passes for the under-25s, and these proposals are equally improbable. The general principle is that, if a franchise is taken away from a business, that business must be compensated not with one year’s profit but with one year’s revenue. That is £700 million or £800 million straight away.
Next, we should take a look at the accounts of Lothian Buses—which is, I should immediately say, an excellent company. Indeed, 100 years ago, my great-uncle Alex was the cabinet member of Edinburgh council with responsibility for it, so it is all probably down to him. What is the capitalisation for Lothian Buses, which covers about 10 per cent of Scotland’s population? The answer, which can be found in the accounts as at 31 December 2017, is £147 million. If I factor that up—which I accept is a very crude way of working and is open to being criticised, but I have nothing better—we get a figure of £1.5 billion. If we then add the £700 million, we are talking about £2.2 billion.
I accept that that is the ceiling, which we certainly would not reach and could not exceed, but it illustrates the general point that, although there are a lot of numbers to look at, there has been almost no talk about those numbers. There is, of course, profit—the dividend comes back—but we need the capitalisation in the first place. It is also worth saying that a local authority would need to buy vehicles either from existing bus companies or from elsewhere, and I suspect that the existing bus companies would not give it a huge discount, given that it would be, in effect, a forced sale. The Labour Party is perfectly entitled to pursue its proposals, but I urge it to produce some numbers based on something more than my—to be blunt—20 minutes of research using the accounts of Lothian Buses—which, I repeat, is an excellent company that I use from time to time with my bus pass.
Colin Smyth
The member has, in effect, slated the idea of local authorities being able to set up bus companies in an unrestricted way, but does he support the Government’s plan to allow them to set up such companies only to meet unmet need? If so, exactly how many local authorities does he think are going to do that?
Stewart Stevenson
I am very clear that the Government’s proposals are good and worthy of support, and there are other proposals from the Labour Party to which I must say to the member that I am not closing my mind. Nevertheless, I must point out to him that, to gain support from across the Parliament, he will have to provide some numbers for the investment and the capitalisation that would be required as well as for the liabilities that would be taken on, particularly in relation to pensions as people were brought across from commercial companies under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. I simply urge the member to produce some numbers, because he might then persuade more of us who have yet to be persuaded.
On the bus improvement partnerships, it is fair to say that the previous voluntary and compulsory partnerships have not delivered as I think we had all hoped when we passed the previous legislation. However, I know that the bus companies are cautiously supportive of the new proposals, which is only reasonable, and I am certainly prepared to be cautiously supportive of them, too.
I think that we can do more on bus lanes. It should be compulsory for all bus lanes to operate 24 hours a day. We should also enforce them better. Once we do that, bus journey times will be consistent and people would rely on them more.
On parking, it is important that we respect the needs of those with reduced mobility, particularly those who are blind, who may walk into vehicles that are parked on pavements because they simply do not see them. Dropped kerbs are an issue for blind people, too, because they need a clear delineation between pavement and road.
On loading and unloading, I make a rather obvious suggestion: someone should be able to load and unload only if they have an indicator on their windscreen that is adjusted to show at what time they parked the vehicle. That is done in other countries, by the way—there is nothing particularly novel about that.
Mike Rumbles
Will the member take an intervention?
Stewart Stevenson
I am in my last minute—do forgive me.
In conclusion, I will mention the workplace parking levy. Like others, I have not seen the proposed amendment, and the whips have not yet approached me to tell me what I have to say or do on the subject. However, I will say this: there are different ways of introducing such a levy. I encourage John Finnie to consider that I am reluctant to support any measure that puts a cost on individual citizens but I might be prepared to support a measure that puts the cost on those who provide the parking. In other words, if the charge is on companies, that is fair enough, but if the charge is on individuals, that is a much more difficult ask for me.
I have no hesitation in saying that I will support this excellent bill come decision time tonight.
15:51Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)
Like my REC Committee colleagues, I thank the clerks and everyone who attended the committee during evidence sessions to help us to write our stage 1 report.
It is clear that, across the chamber, although we all appreciate what the bill tries to do, on the whole, it lacks ambition and, if it is to achieve its aims, it will need to be amended as it proceeds.
I agree with the bill’s general principles. Climate change and air quality have been discussed numerous times in the chamber over the past two weeks alone, and those are key drivers of the bill. The bill is large, covering six main aspects relating to transport. Time does not allow me to comment on all six, so I will discuss low-emission zones and bus services.
Part 1 would create a legal right for local authorities to establish, operate, amend and revoke low-emission zones. That key instrument is designed to reduce congestion and improve air quality in Scotland’s four main cities, including, of course, Dundee and Aberdeen, which are in the North East region. A low-emission zone would restrict vehicles in the area to those that met specified emission standards, and anyone driving a car in an LEZ that did not meet the standard or that was not exempt would be fined. However, the bill lacks clarity. A clear definition of what an LEZ is and what its objectives should be are needed. It will be necessary for the Scottish Government to lodge an appropriate amendment at stage 2 to bring that clarity.
The effective introduction of LEZs will require improvements to public transport provision. Measures such as park-and-ride facilities and improved active travel opportunities will need to be put in place. Educating the public about why a zone is important and the benefits that it will deliver will be essential to getting drivers to buy in to the concept. There must also be a robust appeals process to address queries on penalties and circumstances when drivers require to access the zone in an emergency. To avoid confusion and encourage compliance, there must also be consistency across the country about which vehicles can enter an LEZ.
The regulations must clearly set out minimum technical emission standards. Standardised signage and a comprehensive package of information must be provided by local authorities at all stages of introduction, to allow people sufficient time to prepare for the changes. There will also be a cost implication for business and individual motorists should they need to upgrade their vehicles. As is often the case, that would impact most heavily on those on lower incomes.
Part 2 addresses issues to do with bus services and focuses on concerns about the long-term decline in bus use across Scotland. That decline is being driven by many factors including the reduction in direct bus support in rural areas and congestion in towns. The lack of appropriate infrastructure such as bus lanes is leading to slow average speeds and long and slow journeys. The current provisions in the bill to allow councils to run their own bus services will not, in my opinion, deliver. We heard, during evidence sessions, that few local authorities are likely to have the financial resources or the expertise to take advantage of the options that are set out in the bill. Indeed, Aberdeenshire Council has recently axed several services in rural areas due to a lack of funding.
The bill would amend the Transport Act 1985 to allow a local authority to provide local bus services where there is an unmet public transport need. The committee felt that that was too restrictive and recommended an amendment at stage 2 to allow greater flexibility. I disagreed with that, however, because, if councils get involved where there is already adequate bus provision, they may trigger a bus war with the company that is already supplying the services, and bus wars never end well.
The bill also proposes replacing statutory bus quality partnerships with bus service improvement partnerships, which involve two elements. That change is generally welcomed, but local authorities question whether they will be able to join such a partnership due to constraints on time and resources. The Scottish Government has, thankfully, provided further information that clears up some of the confusion about how BSIPs will work in practice and how they will differ from the previous scheme. However, that clarity is lacking in the bill as it is drafted.
Another initiative that the bill would allow is bus service franchising. However, it was felt that, in practice, only a small number of local authorities would have the time or resources to establish a framework. It is obvious to me that many of the schemes for bus services that are on offer in the bill will be taken up only if the Government is prepared to put additional funds at the disposal of councils.
Other sections of the bill that I have not had time to discuss cover smart ticketing schemes, pavement parking, road works and canals. We expect to work with stakeholders during stage 2 to further amend those sections as appropriate. There is also the workplace parking levy, which is due to be added to the bill at stage 2. It will evoke much debate in the committee, and the Conservative Party will oppose it. We can never support taxing people to drive to and park at their work. It will be interesting to see how Mr Lyle responds when we discuss that in committee.
The bill has merit, but it is by no means ready to be implemented as legislation. I am committed to working with all committee members at stage 2 to scrutinise all amendments that will strengthen and improve the bill and provide more guidance to local authorities and greater reassurance to the public and small business owners.
15:58Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
As the cabinet secretary said, this is a wide-ranging bill, covering a range of distinct policy areas. However, I agree with members who have said that it is not nearly ambitious enough.
I will focus my remarks on public transport and those sections of the bill relating to how the bus market in this country operates, because Scotland’s bus market is broken. Bus services are in decline and the deregulated model has failed. Instead of seeing a competitive market for bus services in which fare-paying passengers are in the driving seat, a patchwork of local monopolies has emerged across the country.
Since 2007, the total number of bus journeys is down by almost 100 million, and 64 million vehicle kilometres have been stripped out of our bus network. Meanwhile, fares keep rising, doing so more in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. In fact, the relative cost of bus travel has increased more than any other mode of land transport over the past 30 years, and by more than double the retail prices index.
It is clear that we need radical change. It is also clear that only where bus services are run on different principles do bus operators buck the trend, with higher passenger satisfaction, slower rates of decline and more profit reinvested in the bus network—in London, where the bus market is regulated to a high standard, or right here in Edinburgh, as we have heard, where Lothian Buses is publicly owned and democratically accountable.
The Scottish Government says that the purpose of part 2 of the bill is to ensure that local authorities
“have viable and flexible options to improve bus services in their areas.”
If that is to mean anything, those options must include a realistic route to collective ownership. Local government must have the power to challenge and to replace the broken and failed deregulated system. Councils and communities must be empowered to form democratically controlled operators and to work with community transport organisations. Scottish Labour members of the Scottish Parliament will seek to amend the bill to strengthen Scotland’s bus laws, make municipal and common ownership a reality, promote community transport, recognise that bus routes are essentially community assets that should be protected as such, and give the passengers and communities who depend on public transport a real say. We should have a people’s bus service that is run for passengers, not profit.
If members want to know why that is so important, I will give them an example from my region. Changes by Glasgow CityBus will see the 142 Bishopbriggs circular service withdrawn because of a commercial decision that has been taken by a private operator. There has been no consultation or engagement with the community. The problem is that there are plenty of hurdles that transport authorities have to jump in order to provide a subsidised service, but apparently none for privately owned operators who seek to withdraw bus services entirely. Local councillor Alan Moir, who argues that the 142 service should be retained, tells me that 70 per cent of people who use the lifeline service are concession card holders. The deregulated market pays no regard to the social impact of withdrawing the 142 bus from this community and many others. That is why we have to shift power from the owners of the bus companies to our communities, as Colin Smyth has said.
Scottish Labour will seek to ensure that the hurdles to providing subsidised services through local government are not in place in relation to municipal ownership. Local authorities should be allowed to run services as a matter of principle, and not just in instances of unmet need. That would allow other parts of the country to benefit from the successful Lothian model, where profits are reinvested. It would also allow local, publicly owned bus companies to compete freely for any service or franchise that may be created in future. I have long supported London-style bus franchising powers—which I believe should be granted automatically—coming to local government in Scotland. Just as the Scottish Government should provide a realistic route to common ownership, it should provide one to a London-style system.
On the issue of funding, there have been substantial reforms to the bus service operators grant in England and Wales: £93 million is now paid directly to Transport for London in the regulated market there. As a nation, Scotland already subsidises the bus industry to the extent that 45 per cent of operators’ income comes from the public purse. In addition to funding local government fairly, the Scottish Government should review its funding for bus services to ensure that the provisions in part 2 of the bill are viable.
Every Scottish Labour MSP stood on a manifesto that promised that we would make it
“cheaper and easier to get to work.”
It is for that reason that Scottish Labour welcomes any progress on smart ticketing and integrated public transport. There should be a single multimodal smart ticketing system that can be used across all modes of public transport in Scotland. It is for the same reason that we believe that we cannot support a workplace parking levy. As Colin Smyth said, that is a regressive levy that workers would not be able to avoid and that would hit low-paid workers the hardest.
Climate change is one of the great challenges of our time, and vehicle emissions in our city centres are a public health concern, but the solutions do not have to be complicated. We already know what the answers are. What is required is a modal shift towards public transport. Low-emission zones must not exist in isolation. Better bus services will not just enhance public transport; they will also help us to reduce vehicle emissions.
For all those reasons, we must seek to strengthen the bill at stage 2 to assert the importance of public transport as a public service.
16:04Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
I am not a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, but I appeared before its predecessor, and the then Local Government and Regeneration Committee, on a number of occasions in connection with my proposed responsible parking bill, which I introduced as the Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill. I thank those committees for listening to me. I also thank all those who gave evidence on the Transport (Scotland) Bill or who worked on it—not just on the parking aspect—very intensively.
We have been pushing for a responsible parking bill, or for the issue to be included in a transport bill, for about 10 years, so I am delighted to be here to talk about the bill. I thank former MSP Ross Finnie who first tried to introduce such a bill about nine years ago, Joe FitzPatrick—whose bill I took over—and the many people and at least 20 charities and organisations, including lots of disability and social care charities, that came together with Living Streets Scotland in the responsible parking alliance, which did an enormous amount of work to help me when I was developing my bill. My bill had a very large number of responses—one of the biggest—for a consultation on a bill.
I have listened to the various discussions about the bill and I agree with a number of the committee’s recommendations, particularly with regard to the amendment on dropped kerbs—I fully endorse what the committee has to say about that. My original bill included not just parking but the issue of dropped kerbs, which desperately needs to be looked at. I will give members a little bit of history about the first stage of my bill. Believe it or not, this Parliament did not have the powers—not only when Ross Finnie and Joe FitzPatrick were working on their proposed bills—to introduce any bills about blocked kerbs, dropped kerbs or responsible parking, as those issues were not covered in the 1998 or 2012 Scotland Acts. For one reason or another, they could not be included in any form of transport bill. I thank the Scottish Government—I believe that it was Derek Mackay, in particular—for introducing the Transport (Scotland) Bill and including in it the issues of my bill. That is fantastic, and it came about as a result of the Smith commission. It has been a long road to get to the point at which we can look at this properly.
Members talk about fines and so on, but I never envisaged the bill as being punitive. It should be educational, so that it teaches drivers that pavements are for people, not cars. I am looking forward to stage 2 of the bill and I hope that there will be an educational element to it, so that there is some form of education—whether on TV or elsewhere—to let drivers and car owners know that it will be coming into force. I do not want it to be punitive; I do not believe that there is a huge number of irresponsible, could-not-care-less, selfish drivers out there. Most of them are responsible.
It is just a matter of educating people about what can happen. We heard in evidence about a blind gentleman who was walking along the street with his white stick, happened to tap a car that was parked on the pavement and the stick broke. That gentleman was left stranded on the pavement for hours until somebody came along. There is the issue of people taking their kids to school or nursery in a pram or buggy and having to go on the road. That is dangerous and it should not be allowed to happen. People must come before cars and, in response to the questionnaires that went out, 95 per cent of people were in agreement with that.
Pavements are for people and roads are for cars, and it is time that people were educated about that. That is why the dropped kerb issue is important. If somebody has parked on the dropped kerb, people who are disabled, blind, elderly or have kids in prams cannot walk along the pavement and cross the road at that point. It is about being sensible.
I thank members of the committee for the amount of work that they have put into the issues, and for putting up with some of the evidence that I brought to them. I understand about having to load and unload, which was mentioned by the Road Haulage Association. The subject was also raised at one of the committee meetings at which I gave evidence. There are, however, areas where it says, “No loading” or, “Only loading”, so it is the policing of loading that is important. If people are getting something delivered, of course it has to be delivered to that place. Shops have to get deliveries, but it has to be done sensibly so that the delivery vehicles are not left across the whole pavement. That means education more than anything.
Not being a member of the committee, I am grateful to be able to speak in the debate. I look forward to stage 2 and stage 3, and to having responsible parking so that people can walk on the pavements.
16:10Donald Cameron (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
I am grateful to be able to contribute to this stage 1 debate, particularly given that many people who live in the Highlands and Islands see public transport as a lifeline service, not just as an alternative to other modes of travel. Indeed, many rural and remote communities rely especially on robust and timely public transport and infrastructure to carry out daily tasks, get to work, attend hospital appointments and connect with friends and family. Whether it is people in our island communities who need a ferry service that runs on time and has enough space and capacity for passengers and vehicles or good local bus services to connect people from rural communities to Scotland’s major cities, strong transport links are plainly good for society and the economy.
As Scottish Conservative colleagues have commented, we support the general principles of the bill and, as many of my colleagues have intimated, we feel that there are a lot of positive elements in the bill, as well as some missed opportunities. In the time that is available to me, I want to focus on a particular area that I feel the bill could address slightly more: accessible transport and the needs of passengers suffering from disability.
Accessible transport is vital for many people across Scotland, particularly elderly and disabled people, but it is also important for other people, including parents travelling with young children. The experience of travel is important, too. Travelling to a station or bus stop, interacting with the surroundings, purchasing tickets and using various facilities are all elements of the travelling experience that must be viewed through the prism of accessibility.
I want to cover a few of those elements in greater detail. I had the benefit last year of hosting a round-table discussion for stakeholders, including the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance, Bus Users Scotland, and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, at an event in the Parliament that I organised. The former transport minister Humza Yousaf attended, and I place on record my thanks to him for the interest that he showed in this issue. There were about 20 delegates from a multitude of organisations, who had different ideas, considerations and views on how the accessible transport experience in Scotland should look in the short and long term. It was a very valuable experience, and I had hoped that some of the suggestions might have been carried forward.
For example, one issue that arose at the round-table event was the design of vehicles. I heard various concerns about step access, the size of disabled buttons on new train stock, restrictive loop systems and poorly designed access to toilets. As a result, it may be that one of the things that can be considered at stage 2 is the issue of vehicle design.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission said in its submission on the bill that it recommends
“that disability access is named as a service standard to which all proposed vehicles used are subject to”.
In its summary of recommendations and conclusions, the REC Committee stated:
“the ability to access transport can play a fundamental role in how a person can contribute to and participate in society. It notes the suggestions made on the bill from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and asks the Scottish Government to reflect on and respond to these in detail before Stage 2 of the Bill.”
I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government listens to that recommendation and acts on it, because it is crucial that people have confidence on the issue in the future.
I am also particularly concerned about this issue because of a local aspect to the matter, which involved the resignation of Arthur Cowie from the chairmanship of the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance over the redesign of the trains operating on the west Highland line. I know Arthur well, as we worked together last year in organising the round-table event that I mentioned. He is incredibly passionate about accessible transport, and his resignation from that role should be noted. In an article in The Scotsman in February, Arthur said:
“Recent actions by ScotRail and Transport Scotland have made me realise I have been wasting my time over the last 40 years in trying to achieve accessible travel, and have been played for a fool by the transport authorities over this period.”
I find that to be a particularly concerning indictment, and I hope that the Government listens to those views with respect to the bill.
I am concerned that the issue of cars parking across dropped kerbs has not been adequately addressed. The issue was mentioned by Sandra White and other members, and by Edward Mountain on behalf of the REC Committee. Apart from the obvious problems that parking across dropped kerbs can cause for most road users, it is particularly inconsiderate and problematic for many elderly and disabled pedestrians, who rely heavily on open dropped kerbs. I welcome the fact that the REC Committee report states:
“a prohibition of parking across such formally recognised crossing points (as distinct from residential driveways) would provide a package of measures which would more comprehensively enhance accessibility in urban areas.”
Again, I hope that the Scottish Government takes cognisance of that.
The Scottish Conservatives support the bill at stage 1. We agree that there is a need to adopt new practices and to ensure that transport meets our environmental commitments and we have a long-term plan that is fit for Scotland today and beyond. As a party, we will scrutinise the bill as it goes forward. As my colleagues who have spoken thus far have suggested, although there are areas of the bill that can be improved, we generally support it.
For my part, I hope that greater consideration will be given to accessibility issues, so that Scotland can lead the way in that crucial area. Ultimately, every individual who uses public transport in Scotland should have the same choice, freedom and dignity to travel. I hope that, as the bill progresses, we can make that happen.
16:16John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
First, I should say that I am more than happy to support the bill. It covers a number of areas, and I will focus my remarks on pavement parking and the workplace parking levy.
There is no question but that we have a problem with pavement parking, which is when a car is parked fully or partly on a pavement to the extent that a wheelchair or pram could not get past. That is obstruction and, although the police have the power to enforce the law on that, in practice that seldom happens. In an ideal world, there would be plenty of space for completely clear pavements, lanes for cycling, space for parking and plenty of room for large vehicles to pass on the road itself. Unfortunately, many roads in Glasgow and elsewhere do not have space for all that. My fear is that forcing cars entirely on to the road surface would cause obstructions for public transport and emergency vehicles and so on. I do not think that any of us wants that.
Although there is a problem at the moment, there are also many considerate drivers who put two wheels on the pavement in order to avoid blocking either the road or the pavement. In fact, that is sometimes encouraged by council road markings that are designed to ensure that the road itself does not become blocked. I wonder, then, whether some compromise is needed. Perhaps it would be better for the rule to be that at least 1.5m of pavement must be left clear of vehicles, which would allow adequate space for wheelchairs and prams. If the pavement was less than 1.5m wide, no vehicle wheels would be allowed on the pavement at all. That would also have the advantage of being cheaper than the proposals in the bill. Although the bill would allow exemptions, I suspect that, because of the cost of introducing them, councils would resist doing so as widely as they should.
I am also concerned that, whatever the rules are, they are unlikely to be widely enforced. Experience in Glasgow already shows that, although parking on double yellow lines or parking that causes an obstruction is against the law, in many cases the law is not enforced. The bill proposes powers for local authorities to enforce the law, and the Government says on page 26 of its response to the stage 1 report that that is a duty. However, I fear that that will not happen in practice. Linked to enforcement is the question of whether fines are sufficient for councils to cover their costs, such as the cost of paying wardens.
Sandra White
Enforcement was one of the areas that I was going to comment on. I am also worried about what will happen if we make it known that anyone can park on the pavement, even if it is just with two wheels. There are large stretches of road in my constituency, which covers the city centre, and I would worry that there would be cars constantly parked on the pavements, which would mean that anyone with a pram or a disability would have a long distance to walk before they could get off the pavement. I do not want to encourage people to park on pavements at all.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)
I will give Mr Mason his time back.
John Mason
That is kind; thank you.
I accept that there are differences in different parts of the city. Streets in the city centre, such as Hope Street, where I have seen cars parked on double yellow lines that are not enforced, are slightly different from most of my constituency, which is further out. However, we must somehow find a compromise.
The second main topic that I will focus on is the workplace parking levy. As Mike Rumbles said, there are unusual circumstances in that the workplace parking levy has become part of the budget agreement and we expect to see an amendment to introduce it at stage 2. It is not normal to see such a major new issue appear at stage 2, and it is not ideal. Stage 1 is when a committee carries out a thorough examination of the main features of any bill, and I believe that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee carried out such an examination of the bill as introduced. There was an argument that, in order to take evidence on the levy, the committee could have postponed the completion of its report, but it was decided to press ahead with stage 1 and deal with the amendment as part of stage 2.
In principle, I am comfortable with a levy that targets directors and other highly paid individuals who have a parking space in the city centre, when they could easily use a train or bus for commuting to their 9-to-5 jobs, but I have a lot of questions about the proposed levy. We know that the provisions in the bill will only be enabling legislation and that it will be up to councils to decide whether they want it or not, but we do not know at what level the charge would be, whether it would apply to the employer or employee or what exemptions there might be. It has been suggested that NHS hospitals might be exempt. What about care homes, hospices, general practices, social work, the police and out-of-town factories where the workers do shifts? Should it be extended to out-of-town shopping centres, so that shoppers would pay to park and thereby help to protect our town centres? I look forward to seeing the amendment and to taking evidence in the committee, when I hope that those types of question will be clarified.
Another issue that has been raised is whether there would be any advantage in commercial bus services being publicly owned. I certainly regret that Strathclyde was forced to privatise its buses, while Lothian was allowed to keep its buses. However, when we had Strathclyde Buses and before that, Glasgow Corporation Transport, Scottish Motor Traction—SMT—and the Scottish Bus Group, there were still frequent complaints about bus services. For example, in Rutherglen, the complaint was that all the buses ran to Castlemilk and ignored Rutherglen.
However, we had evidence that bus usage has been in decline in the west of Scotland since before 1960—long before any privatisation. Therefore, although I am sympathetic to public ownership and I think that we should consider it, we must be wary about assuming that it would automatically lead to increased or improved services. The fall in bus usage is complex; it is linked to a desire for cars and to improved train services in the Glasgow area.
I am more than happy to support the principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that we will see one major amendment—and probably a host of other amendments—at stage 2. We will have to see what happens then.
16:22James Kelly (Glasgow) (Lab)
It has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Members have made contributions on issues ranging from pavement parking to low-emission zones. That shows the wide range of subjects that the bill covers.
I want to concentrate on buses, which is where the bill comes up short. In the area that I represent, there is no doubt that buses are very much required by commuters. They are required to get to work, for social purposes and to travel to hospitals. In recent years, bus services have been concentrated—a small number of companies focus on the more profitable routes, particularly around the city centre, and by the time we get to Rutherglen, which John Mason mentioned, or further, to Cambuslang, Halfway and Blantyre, the routes are not as well populated by buses.
Another trend that we have seen in recent years is bus companies shutting the routes in off-peak periods, particularly in the evening. That can be a problem, particularly for people who are perhaps travelling to visit people in hospital. To explain why that is happening, we need to examine the trend. One of the astonishing numbers that I came across in preparing for the debate was that, back in 2007, there were 487 million bus journeys in Scotland, but that figure has reduced by nearly 100 million to 388 million; so, there are now 100 million fewer bus journeys per year than there were 10 years ago.
There are a number of reasons for that. First, fares have increased by 18 per cent in the past five years, so it is more expensive for people to travel by bus. There are also fewer buses—with 10 per cent less stock and 2 per cent fewer staff—and bus companies are contracting in size in terms of both infrastructure and numbers, which feeds through to the routes. The reduction in the bus service operators grant, which Colin Smyth described, also contributes, and the overall picture of reduced local government funding has not helped local authorities to subsidise less-profitable routes.
The picture that that paints is one of decline in the use of bus services and an increase in bus companies’ power over communities in respect of their ability to either run or cancel routes. That seems unfair, particularly given that 35 per cent of journeys are made under the concessionary travel scheme, through which the Scottish Government makes a major contribution to free bus travel. The logic of that would be to give more power to communities and to look to a model that supports municipal bus companies.
Ultimately, we need to get back to a position where communities and councils have greater control of bus routes in order to ensure that their bus routes and bus companies serve them.
Ticketing and data are another interesting area, which sounds technical but could help—the get Glasgow moving group provided a good briefing on that. Over the years, there has been a lot of discussion about smart ticketing and having one ticket to cover different companies and different modes of transport, but the reality is that movement on that has been far too slow. It could help by providing ease of travel for customers and allowing for the collection of data. If we are to organise bus routes in an efficient manner that serves customers well, we need more information about fares, routes and usage. Smart ticketing and better collection of data would help to service that.
Finally, I turn to the workplace parking levy. There are two issues with it. First, it is fundamentally unfair. I just read a quotation from a senior Scottish Government minister, talking about free prescriptions, who said that it is unfair to tax ill health. By the same token, how is it fair to tax people driving to their work?
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention?
The Deputy Presiding Officer
The member is in his last minute—in fact, he is in his last 30 seconds.
James Kelly
I am sorry—I have only half a minute left.
The second issue with the workplace parking levy, which even Mr Mason acknowledged, is that it is quite a big change in Government policy. It is one of the more controversial measures that the Scottish National Party has introduced in the past 12 years and it is wrong for it to come in at stage 2 of a bill. If the Government genuinely wanted to bring it forward, it should have run a consultation on it and sought people’s view on it, instead of ramming it through as part of a budget deal. There are big issues to resolve at stage 2.
16:29Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I thank the clerks for their work on the Rural Environment and Connectivity Committee report, and I welcome and support the bill at stage 1.
It is especially important for everyone to take note of part 1 of the bill, which covers low-emission zones—an important matter that gives the bill great purpose. I am concerned about the poor air quality in certain areas and that is why I want to deliver for the people of Scotland a bill that meets their needs and looks after their health. It is anticipated that the bill will accomplish that.
We should make great efforts to improve the health of the people of Scotland by putting forth a bill that strives to reduce air pollution. The bill will do that by prohibiting vehicles that do not meet emission standards from driving in low-emission zones. I welcome low-emission zones because I sincerely believe that the people of Scotland deserve to live free from health problems that are caused by poor air quality and that we could achieve that by enforcing low-emission zones. We should deliberately plan to prevent any unintended repercussions that would undermine our goal, such as the suspension of an LEZ; I believe that a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week LEZ should mean exactly that, as the British Lung Foundation suggested.
Our efforts and care should be extended to our local businesses. That is why I believe that part 2 of the bill, which covers bus services in Scotland, is also essential. The provisions aim to help local councils, by giving them options that will help them to enhance bus services in their area. Part 2 also strives to provide more innovative ways to address bus service issues. I was previously a councillor, and I have always believed that councils could do more with regard to bus services.
The decline of bus use in Scotland is visible and is a problem that concerns the committee and me. It could, and should, be tackled if Scotland is to reverse that trend. To do so, we must address the problem by looking at affordable solutions. I sincerely believe that, if more of our constituents were able to access our bus services, we would have more productive members of society and that we would bestow them with the opportunity to give back to Scotland.
The Transport (Scotland) Bill is a piece of legislation that attempts to help Scotland and its people: it is a start. Moreover, the bill will improve the daily lives of our citizens by providing a solution to our pavement parking issue. Indeed, pedestrians must be protected, and the bill will ensure that pavement parking is addressed.
We need to restrict pavement parking to protect our citizens from harm. Pavement parking is dangerous for all pedestrians, including those with sight loss. In fact, the Guide Dogs Scotland survey, which I thank the organisation for providing, found that nine out of 10 people with sight loss have had problems with cars that are parked on the pavement. Obstructions on the pavement are not just an inconvenience but a barrier to people being able to fully participate in our society. The obstruction prevents people with sight loss from moving freely, which increases feelings of isolation; people with disabilities and buggy users are also affected.
The bill will make pavement parking an offence except, of course, on a limited number of streets that are exempted by the council. However, the aim of the legislation should be that pavement parking is a total exception, not a norm. I suggest that pavement parking should be minimised in line with the ask of Guide Dogs Scotland. The bill responds to the request of our citizens, who showed 83 per cent support for new legislation that tackles pavement parking.
We make laws to improve the lives of all our citizens, including citizens with sight loss, and that is what part 4 of the bill should be about.
Mike Rumbles
Will the member take an intervention?
Richard Lyle
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
As a member of the committee, I believe that we should listen to the views of Guide Dogs Scotland with regard to loading and unloading. I am sure that the issue will be resolved during the next stage, following discussion with Guide Dogs Scotland.
I will raise a final issue, in respect of which I declare an interest as the convener of the cross-party group on the Scottish Showmen’s Guild. I voice my support for giving a limited exemption to showmen. At stage 2 of the bill, consideration should be given to having an exemption for showpeople who are travelling through a low-emission zone. Traditionally, showmen have been acknowledged as a special case and have exemptions in other areas. Historically—I sound like Mr Stevenson—showpeople were first granted concessionary rates of taxation in 1927. The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 modified those concessions but kept the exemption for the “showman’s goods vehicle”. I will support a preservation of those reliefs for showpeople at stage 2 and will try to ensure that that happens.
I support the bill, which aims to have greater efficiency in pollution control, strives to improve our bus services and will solve our issues regarding pavement parking. I look forward to the next stage of the bill, when we will be looking at the workplace parking levy.
16:34Colin Smyth
Transport impacts on many aspects of our constituents’ lives, from their health to the environment to poverty. It accounts for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, with levels currently the same as they were in 1990. It is a key cause of air pollution, which last year hit illegal levels in eight areas in Scotland.
Cars are by far the biggest polluters in the sector. However, ultra-low-emission vehicles still make up less than 1 per cent of road vehicles, bus usage has plummeted by 20 per cent in the last 10 years under the SNP Government and bus fares have risen by 17 per cent above inflation. The proportion of journeys made on foot has fallen since last year, and just 1.5 per cent of journeys are made by bike.
As the Poverty Alliance has highlighted, the most disadvantaged are hit hardest by those changes: young people are being priced out of travelling to education or work by spiralling bus fares, and older adults and disabled people are being isolated by the axing of local bus services.
The bill is an opportunity to meet those challenges head on and to move towards a modern, green, accessible transport system. It is an opportunity to set out a vision for transport and to establish the legal framework that will underpin our values and ambitions for public transport as a real public service. As the debate has shown, the bill as it stands fails to achieve that.
Several speakers including Mike Rumbles, John Finnie, Peter Chapman, Richard Lyle and others talked about low-emission zones—albeit they had different views. The bill sets out a much-needed and largely reasonable framework for LEZs. Amendments will be needed if we are to ensure that the legislation is effective and future proofed. That means having a statutory definition to provide clarity and make clear that the purpose of an LEZ is to ensure that air pollution is lower than it would be if an LEZ had not been introduced. That may seem obvious. However, when we consider the generous grace periods in the bill and the natural lifespan of cars, there is a real risk of local authorities introducing LEZs that ultimately do not have any real effect. LEZs will be weakened further if they can be suspended or are not operated on a continuous 24/7 basis; Richard Lyle highlighted that.
Air pollution costs around 2,500 lives each year in Scotland. It is an urgent public health crisis, but one that the bill fails to recognise fully. As Neil Bibby, James Kelly, John Finnie, Mike Rumbles and Jamie Greene recognised, the bill also fails to recognise the urgent crisis that we face on our bus network by allowing councils to run only the bus services that the private sector does not want to run. Not a single council in Scotland has shown any interest in doing that.
It is no coincidence that Lothian Buses, Scotland’s only municipal bus company, has seen its passenger numbers grow, while patronage elsewhere plummets, or that it has a 95 per cent customer satisfaction rate and some of the lowest fares in Scotland. That is the outcome of a model that prioritises passengers over profits, encourages social responsibility and delivers millions of pounds a year back into the public purse to be reinvested in public transport. It is unsustainable of the Government to believe that the bill should prevent the rest of Scotland from pursuing such a model.
Several members highlighted the fact that, as the bill stands, the provisions on ticketing arrangements and schemes do not go far enough—they do not even deliver the national multimodal smart card that the Government promised back in 2012. The establishment of a new national technological standard and the national smart ticketing advisory board are welcome, but we need to give the board the legally binding remit to deliver a single ticketing scheme across Scotland and across transport modes.
There was general consensus that pavement parking is an inconvenience for disabled people and that action is needed to tackle that. However, several members said that such action should be extended to include a ban on parking in cycle lanes and next to dropped kerbs—that point was made by Sandra White and Donald Cameron.
There was a recognition of the need for reasonable and targeted exemptions to the ban on pavement parking. However, those must not act as loopholes that undermine the ban, which is what the exemption that would allow 20 minutes for delivery and loading does. I fear that allowing parking on pavements with a 1.5m space would also be a loophole and continue to present a hazard for those with a visual impairment.
The bill also gives councils the power to enforce the new regulations. That point has not yet been covered, so I will spend a couple of minutes talking about it. That provision means that councils without decriminalised parking enforcement will be required to set up an entire department, which could issue a parking ticket for a car parked on a pavement on one side of the street, but could not issue a ticket for a car parked on a double yellow line on the other side of the street. What an absurd situation for the Government to create. Surely it is not beyond the Government’s ability to bring forward proposals to simplify the decriminalisation process or to extend councils’ enforcement powers to a wider range of traffic offences.
Jamie Greene
Does the member share the view of Scottish Borders Council, which suggests that the proposal simply shifts responsibility for enforcement from the police to local authorities, which do not have the funding and resources for that?
Colin Smyth
Jamie Greene makes a valid point. The biggest problem is the fallout from Police Scotland’s decision to scrap traffic wardens, who dealt with parking problems in our town centres. Now, we see police officers walking by cars that are parked on double yellow lines and not taking action, because the police do not regard that as a priority.
The situation is leading to parking chaos in far too many of our town centres, which is impacting on businesses. The sad reality is that if Police Scotland is not prepared to bring back traffic wardens, the only way to tackle the issue is by giving local authorities enforcement powers. The problem with the bill is that a council that has not decriminalised parking will have to enforce the law on pavement parking but will not have the power to enforce the law when it comes to parking on a double yellow line. That really is an absurd position. For the Government simply to say that councils should bear the huge cost in money and time of applying for decriminalised parking enforcement is not fair. The Government needs to tackle the anomaly.
In the brief time that remains, I want to put on record Labour’s view that the provisions on regional transport agencies and road works are welcome. In particular, we welcome the strengthening of the Scottish road works commissioner’s powers and the provision that makes the safety code mandatory for road authorities.
A number of members mentioned the workplace parking levy, but not a single one of them talked about the regressive nature of a tax that means that a company boss pays the same as a company cleaner.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member give way?
The Deputy Presiding Officer
The member has six seconds.
Colin Smyth
It is unfair that my constituents in South Scotland, who would have to pay the tax, would have no power over its imposition and no power to get any of the money raised spent on public transport.
We support the principles of the bill, but, as I think that all members showed, a lot of work and amendments will be needed to make the bill fit for purpose.
16:42Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)
I am pleased to close this stage 1 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I say at the outset that the bill has many laudable aims, so we will support it at stage 1. However, as members have made clear throughout the debate, the bill currently represents something of a missed opportunity.
There is little doubt that Scotland’s transport network and the framework that governs it are in urgent need of renewal and modernisation. What we need is a vision—a real drive to the future.
As has been made clear throughout the debate, and in many of the helpful submissions that have been sent to members, significant gaps remain. For that reason, we are of the view that the bill could go further, so we will be pleased to lodge amendments at stage 2.
I will talk about specific areas of the bill, and will elaborate on the discussion that we have heard throughout the afternoon. First, on low-emission zones, there is no doubt that in many of our cities air quality remains a problem that lowers life expectancy and puts additional pressure on our health service. I live within a mile of Market Street in Aberdeen, which is one of the most polluted streets in Scotland. The transport sector is the largest source of nitrogen oxide emissions and the second-largest source of particulates in Scotland. We recognise the many potential benefits of tackling air pollution in Scotland’s towns and cities, so we are broadly supportive of LEZs and the effect that they seek to achieve.
However, there are issues. I am indebted to a member of the SNP—I shall not name the member, because it was not a public conversation—who pointed out that there is anecdotal evidence that the impact of the Aberdeen western peripheral route on Market Street’s pollution might be considerable. We are waiting for the local authority to report back on that. Further, she pointed out—rightly, in my view—that Market Street’s issues are compounded by the many large ships in the adjacent harbour that keep their engines running. We need to be sure that LEZs are used properly and have the desired effect.
I note the concerns of the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland that the introduction of LEZs could have a direct impact on more than 80,000 businesses in Scotland’s four biggest cities. We need to bear in mind the wide definition of “business”.
Jamie Greene talked about electric taxis costing £60,000, which is a big hit for a self-employed driver, and his point about rural users of diesel and agricultural vehicles was also important.
John Finnie
Does Liam Kerr accept that people are increasingly living in town and city centres, in particular in vacated shops, so LEZs would be a boon to them, never mind to motorists?
Liam Kerr
I recognise that, but that does not detract from my point: LEZs have their place if they are used properly, but I would like the significant concerns about them to be ironed out at stage 2. John Finnie will share my specific concern about the cost to the public purse.
Peter Chapman mentioned Dundee, which would be one of the cities to introduce an LEZ. We should remember that the point is to impose penalties on drivers who bring dirty vehicles within the LEZ’s boundaries. According to a question from Jenny Marra yesterday, at least 100 of Dundee’s buses currently fail to meet basic environmental standards, and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee flagged up that the bus industry has raised concerns that introducing LEZs without sufficient lead-in times could force firms to withdraw services or increase fares. I know that John Finnie will be concerned about that.
The introduction of LEZs has to be done correctly, so I endorse Jamie Greene’s suggestion that we need proper support and/or industry-specific exemptions to aid businesses and individuals, especially vulnerable people, in the transition to new LEZs. We need a clear timetable—which might include phased implementation—new incentives to encourage take-up of compliant vehicles, support for residents who will reside within the LEZs, and investment to enhance public transport and active travel routes.
Pavement parking is a real problem, so I am pleased that the bill addresses it. Richard Yule mentioned the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, and having experienced a blindfolded walk with a guide dog in Forfar and having consulted constituents in Aberdeen who are mobile only through using wheelchairs, I know that there is a definite need to address the issue. Cars that are parked on pavements can force people to walk into the road, which is especially dangerous for blind and partially sighted people, and for people with reduced mobility, older people and families with pushchairs.
However, I again share Jamie Greene’s concern that although inconsiderate parking must be tackled, a blanket ban with no room for exemptions by local authorities—remember, they know their communities best—might be too much of a catch-all approach. There has to be room for a compromise, such that we strike a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. I agree with the committee that a limited amount of pavement parking could be permitted in specific areas, provided that a specified minimum amount of pavement space remains.
I heard Edward Mountain talk about Cycling Scotland’s briefing, and whether it would be appropriate to extend the provisions in the bill to cover cycleways. Sandra White and Donald Cameron talked powerfully about new protections for dropped-kerb crossing points. There is a great deal of merit in those proposals, so I endorse the calls for the Scottish Government to consider whether such extensions would be appropriate.
I will make some brief comments on the workplace parking levy. I cannot but oppose it, because I cannot see how it can be right to charge workers £500 just to park at their place of work.
John Finnie
I do not know where Liam Kerr got that figure from. Will he acknowledge that his party’s UK Government reviewed the policies that were available to local authorities in England and Wales and considered that they are appropriate? Why does he want fundraising powers for local authorities in England, but not for those in Scotland?
Liam Kerr
Only one council has used the power. We are talking about what is right for Scotland. The significant point is the number of objections that have been raised—not the least of which is from the Scottish Police Federation, which suggests that the proposal could compromise not only public safety, but the safety of our brave police officers. I know that that will concern John Finnie. We must listen to those voices.
Perhaps uniquely, I completely associate myself with Colin Smyth’s comments. His points were absolutely spot on—as were James Kelly’s, to be fair—about commuters from outside cities paying, to no local benefit, under a fundamentally inequitable policy. That point was well made. Richard Yule seemed to miss out a bit of his speech, so I wonder whether he would like to intervene on me right now and restate his view that he will never vote for the policy. Would you care to do so, Mr Yule?
Richard Lyle
My name is not Richard Yule; it is Richard Lyle.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
I ask members to conduct exchanges through the chair rather than across the chamber.
Liam Kerr
Mr Lyle seems to be reluctant to accept my invitation, so I will not push the point.
It is clear from this afternoon’s debate, the committee’s report and the many submissions that groups have sent to members in advance of the debate, that the bill is laudable. It includes many good principles, including a focus on the environment and support for bus services, which is not an issue that I have had time to summarise, although Mike Rumbles and Peter Chapman looked at it in detail and were highly persuasive.
I have my doubts about whether the bill goes far enough or is ambitious enough, but I confirm that we will support its general principles at stage 1, and I look forward to working collaboratively on a cross-party basis to drive improvements in Scotland’s transport network.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
I call Michael Matheson to wind up the debate for the Government.
16:50Michael Matheson
I welcome the contributions from across the chamber, in which members have touched on a range of issues in the bill. In his opening comments, Edward Mountain mentioned the limited amount of time that has been allocated to the debate, given the bill’s complexity and the range of issues that it covers, and I have some sympathy with that point. So great is the range of topics that the bill covers, I had to canter through my opening speech in an effort to touch on as many of them as possible.
I want to pick up on some of the issues that have been raised. I take exception to Mr Greene’s suggestion that, in some way, the bill is not an ambitious bill. I think that he got confused between the need for legislation and the need for a strategy to take forward legislative provisions. As I said at the outset of my opening speech, the bill is only one element of the wider range of measures that need to be taken to tackle a range of transport issues. The review of the national transport strategy will be critical to making sure that we achieve not only the benefits that can come from the bill but the goal of improving Scotland’s transport infrastructure and transport services, which is a much more ambitious agenda. I am sure that Mr Greene will wait with bated breath to read the draft of the national transport strategy and that, when it is published, he will share it with Mr Kerr, who also seems to have confused legislation and strategy.
A key issue is the provision of low-emission zones. It is clear that there is a need for us to take appropriate action to address pollution and poor air quality in our town centres, especially in our big cities. LEZs, which Edward Mountain, Jamie Greene, Mike Rumbles, John Finnie and Colin Smyth, among others, talked about, can assist us in doing that.
One issue that was raised was the need for a standardised approach to such zones. Edward Mountain correctly reflected what I said in my evidence to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which I repeated in my response to the committee’s stage 1 report. Our intention is to have consistency on how low-emission zones are applied. We want the truck, the bus or the car that is compliant in the Glasgow LEZ to also be compliant in the LEZs in Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. We want a consistent approach to be taken to the standards that will be applied. We are setting out the relevant provisions in regulations to give us the flexibility to adapt those standards as things progress and we move on from Euro 6 and Euro 4 engines. That will mean that, as technology develops, we can amend the regulations instead of having to come back to the primary legislation. We will be able to adapt the standards much more quickly and flexibly through regulations as the new zones bed in and technology progresses.
Stewart Stevenson
The second pollutant on the list that is provided in the Government’s “Cleaner Air for Scotland: The Road to A Healthier Future” is sulphur dioxide. The issue of vessels continuing to run their engines in harbours adjacent to populated areas is a real one, because that is the big source of sulphur dioxide. Will the cabinet secretary work with the UK Government to reduce the sulphur in marine fuels, which might help?
Michael Matheson
The member makes a good point. There are new and emerging technologies in the marine industry that could help to address that issue and we will continue to pursue the matter with the UK Government.
The issue of air quality was raised by Peter Chapman and John Finnie. The LEZs do not sit on their own in relation to improving air quality in our city centres. A key part of what we are seeking to do with LEZs is to help to introduce a range of other measures to prioritise public transport options. We only have to look at the approach that is being taken by Glasgow City Council, which introduced the first of its LEZs on 31 December 2018—hogmanay. The Glasgow connectivity commission is looking at a range of issues to see how it can improve transport connectivity in greater Glasgow. A key part of that is improving bus provision.
Glasgow’s approach is exactly the approach that LEZs will help to support and achieve elsewhere. It is about that wider and more holistic approach, looking at active travel options, other public transport options and bus prioritisation—all the measures that we know can assist us in improving air quality in our town centres and in improving the attractiveness of public transport and active travel options.
In places such as Glasgow, the average speed of a bus going through the city centre is in the region of 3mph. By providing greater public transport prioritisation in the town centre, the speed could double to 6mph. It would make journey times quicker and bus travel more attractive and the running cost for the bus industry would be lower as well. That is one of the measures that Glasgow is considering.
LEZs are important, but they are one of a range of elements. A number of members have raised issues in relation to the bus industry—in particular, the declining patronage. One of the errors that can be made in trying to tackle some of the challenges around the bus industry is to think that there is some magic wand that can reverse more than four decades of decline in bus patronage. We all know that the reasons for the decline in bus patronage are multifactorial. There is a range of issues that impact on bus patronage. The idea that there is a simple one-off, off-the-shelf solution that will address all the issues is wrong, because of the complexity of the issues. That is why it is important that the bill makes a range of different options available to local authorities so that they can develop an approach that best suits their local circumstances. For some, that may be franchising; for others, it may be a bus service improvement partnership or running their own services.
As I said when I was at committee, I hear the views of those who believe that there should be a provision to enable local authorities to run their own services as and when they like on a municipal basis, as in Lothian. I am not ideologically opposed to that. However, I will sound one note of caution—the suggestion that that is the answer to all our bus issues in Scotland is simply not true. We only have to look at municipal bus services in England to see that, in some cities, they do not work at all and the local authorities are looking to disinvest from the services because of the challenges. It is not simply about one model; it is how we make use of that model that is important, which is why we will give consideration to that.
Colin Smyth
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
John Finnie
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Michael Matheson
Mr Smyth was first in seeking to make an intervention so I will give way to him.
Colin Smyth
It is important to note that, during the debate, not a single member said that there was one panacea for the decline in bus patronage. However, why does the cabinet secretary think that banning councils from having the same model as Lothian is a way to improve bus services? Why does he stick to that point?
Michael Matheson
As I have said—and I will repeat it for the third time for the benefit of the member—I am open to giving consideration to that option. However, when members overplay a particular option, it suggests that they think there is a wand that they can wave that will resolve problems, which is just not true and does not reflect the complexity of the issues. No doubt the member will want to reflect on that.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying something about parking. I heard the competing views in the chamber on the 20-minute exemption for unloading. It is important to recognise that people in the road haulage and delivery industries and business say that there must be some exemption to allow deliveries to take place, but I have also heard people say that there should be no exemptions whatever or that the exemption should be based not on time but on the amount of the pathway that can be made available.
There are also the concerns expressed by Sandra White who, as everyone in the chamber will want to recognise, has for many years now been pursuing, along with Ross Finnie and Joe FitzPatrick, the need to tackle pavement parking effectively. I will, of course, reflect on the views of and issues raised by the committee and members in the chamber. We are seeking to strike a balance that addresses the issue appropriately, but if there are ways in which we can address the concerns that have been expressed, we will certainly give them due consideration at stage 2.
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
That concludes this afternoon’s debate.
4 April 2019
Financial resolution
A financial resolution is needed for Bills that may have a large impact on the 'public purse'.
MSPs must agree to this for the Bill to proceed.
Financial resolution transcript
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
The next item is consideration of motion S5M-16393, on a financial resolution for the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Transport (Scotland) Bill, agrees to—
(a) any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act, and
(b) any charge or payment in relation to which Rule 9.12.4 of the Standing Orders applies arising in consequence of the Act.—[Derek Mackay]
The Presiding Officer
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
4 April 2019
Stage 2 - Changes to detail
MSPs can propose changes to the Bill. The changes are considered and then voted on by the committee.
Changes to the Bill
MSPs can propose changes to a Bill – these are called 'amendments'. The changes are considered then voted on by the lead committee.
The lists of proposed changes are known as a 'marshalled list'. There's a separate list for each week that the committee is looking at proposed changes.
The 'groupings' document groups amendments together based on their subject matter. It shows the order in which the amendments will be debated by the committee and in the Chamber. This is to avoid repetition in the debates.
How is it decided whether the changes go into the Bill?
When MSPs want to make a change to a Bill, they propose an 'amendment'. This sets out the changes they want to make to a specific part of the Bill.
The group of MSPs that is examining the Bill (lead committee) votes on whether it thinks each amendment should be accepted or not.
Depending on the number of amendments, this can be done during one or more meetings.
Third meeting on amendments
Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 19 June 2019:
Third meeting on amendments transcript
The Convener
I ask those people who have just come in to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent.
Under item 4, we will continue our consideration of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and his supporting officials. I also welcome the non-committee members who are present.
I will briefly explain the procedure. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in a group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my eye. If he has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.
Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press it, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee will immediately move to a vote on the amendment.
If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
I remind everyone that only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. I remind committee members to please keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote—members should put their hands right up in the air because otherwise it is difficult for the clerks to record the vote. I am sure that everyone will be looking around the table to make sure that everyone else is voting.
The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We will not go beyond amendments to part 5 of the bill today.
Section 48—Imposition of penalty charges
The Convener
The first group of amendments is on enforcement of parking prohibitions. Amendment 145, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 311 to 313.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
The bill as introduced allows a person employed by a local authority, or a person employed by a body with which a local authority has made enforcement arrangements, to issue penalty charge notices in connection with breaches of parking prohibitions. Amendment 145 is a technical amendment that will ensure that authorised enforcement officers can either be directly employed or appointed and engaged other than under a contract of employment.
Colin Smyth’s amendment 311 seeks to enable regulations to be made to exempt local authorities without decriminalised parking enforcement powers from the need to enforce the parking prohibitions in the bill. Amendment 312 would then permit regulations to set out alternative arrangements for the enforcement of the parking prohibitions in the bill in those local authority areas.
As the bill sets out national parking prohibitions that will apply consistently across Scotland, I do not consider it appropriate to have a power to make separate arrangements for those local authorities that have not yet applied for DPE powers. Such an approach would risk creating confusion and undermine the consistent national enforcement of the new prohibitions.
It is also unclear from amendment 312 what is intended by way of alternative enforcement arrangements for the non-DPE areas, or why the enforcement arrangements set out in the bill may not be appropriate for local authorities without DPE powers. As I have previously stated, local authorities have the option either to contract enforcement via private companies or to enter into an arrangement with a neighbouring local authority for the purposes of enforcement.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 313 seeks to amend section 54 so that it states that when a local authority enters into arrangements with third parties in connection with the performance of any of the local authority’s functions regarding the issuing of penalty charges, enforcement and removing, moving or disposing of vehicles, the local authority will still be responsible for those functions.
Amendment 313 is unnecessary, as the bill confers statutory duties on local authorities. Although the bill enables local authorities to contract out the performance of some of those duties to third parties, that does not in any way absolve the local authority from legal liability for its statutory obligations, as a matter of basic legal principle.
I therefore ask the committee to support my amendment 145. I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 311 and 312, and Jamie Greene not to move amendment 313. If those amendments are moved, I urge the committee to reject them.
I move amendment 145.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
Amendment 311, in my name, would remove enforcement duties from councils that do not have decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Those councils will be required to enforce pavement parking regulations—in other words, just one type of parking violation—without having the power to enforce others. They will be able to ticket a car that is parked on a pavement but not one that is parked on a double yellow line right next to it. In practical terms, some councils might have to set up an entirely new team to undertake that one task. That seems completely absurd.
Enforcement in relation to pavement parking violations should be in line with enforcement in relation to other parking violations. In areas that have decriminalised parking enforcement, councils are responsible; in other areas, the police are responsible. If the Government’s position is that new offences should be enforced only by councils and not the police, why is it not dealing with councils that have not decriminalised parking enforcement, instead of simply creating an anomaly?
Members will recall that the committee urged the Government to consider the onerous process for councils of decriminalising parking enforcement. I am disappointed that the Government has not done so. In the absence of action from the Government, I lodged amendment 311.
It is not clear whether enforcement responsibilities would automatically fall to the police if they were to be removed from councils, so amendment 312 would simply allow the Government to make regulations to clarify that enforcement should be carried out by the police.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
The cabinet secretary eloquently described the purpose and intention of my short amendment 313 and I was pleased to hear that he thinks that there is a strong legal basis for local authorities’ responsibility for administering enforcement. Amendment 313 really stemmed from a conversation that I had about concerns about the contracting out of enforcement to third parties, such as happens with private parking, and how the process might be administered. On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s comments and assurances, for which I thank him, I will not move amendment 313.
I support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 145.
The amendments in Colin Smyth’s name raise an interesting point, which we might discuss later when we come to my amendment 316, on enforcement of parking violations around schools. Colin Smyth has raised a wider issue about not what is or is not legal but who enforces what and how easy it will be for wardens in decriminalised parking areas and the police to enforce regulations that arise from the bill, whether we are talking about pavement parking, double parking or inconsiderate and obstructive parking in our towns. We will support amendments 311 and 312.
Michael Matheson
I emphasise that the decision to decriminalise the enforcement of parking regulation in a local authority area is a matter for the local authority. As it stands, some 21 local authorities have decriminalised the process. Another two are presently considering that approach. We encourage the other local authorities to consider doing the same, but it is entirely in their gift to take forward the process, which is a fairly straightforward one.
It is important that we have national consistency in the approach that we take in these matters, which is what amendment 145 seeks to achieve.
Amendment 145 agreed to.
08:15The Convener
Jamie Greene wants to say something about amendment 146, in the name of Graham Simpson.
Jamie Greene
I have spoken to Mr Simpson and, given the lack of support for his amendment 115, he does not want to move his other amendments in the group in which amendment 115 was the lead amendment, including amendment 146. I am happy to list the amendments or to leave it at that.
Amendment 146 not moved.
Amendment 147 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
After section 48
The Convener
The next group is on parking prohibitions penalty charges: application of penalty charges. Amendment 310, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 314, 157 and 315.
Jamie Greene
These short amendments deal with the penalty charges that will be collected as a result of the prohibitions in the bill. Amendment 310 sets out a framework for how I think local authorities should use the revenue.
During discussion of low-emission zones, there was, I think, wide acceptance that revenues that are raised from the zones should be put to good use. However, with low-emission zones, there is a structure for setting objectives; the revenues that are raised will be linked to those objectives. That is the right approach—we all agreed on that when considering the related amendments. Given that there is a lack of objectives in the bill regarding prohibition of pavement parking and double parking, there is nothing on which to peg responsibility for where that revenue will go.
In subsections (a), (b) and (c) of amendment 310, I have listed three categories—
“public transport services ... roads, and ... other transport infrastructure”—
to link the money back to the transport theme. That is simply to ensure that the local authorities that raise the money spend it on improving public transport, roads and transport infrastructure, and that the money does not get sucked into a black hole of local authority finance, which is perhaps the case with other forms of parking levies or charges that have been introduced. That is the premise of amendment 310.
Amendments 314 and 315 are technical consequential amendments to amendment 310.
We are happy to support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 157.
I move amendment 310.
Michael Matheson
Section 55 of the bill will enable the Scottish ministers to make regulations regarding
“the keeping of accounts by local authorities in connection with”
the enforcement of parking prohibitions, and regarding
“the purposes for which a surplus”
in those accounts may be used.
Amendment 157, which is in my name, is a technical provision that will ensure that the regulations may make provision for publication of statements of accounts. That will ensure consistency in what the statements of accounts contain, and is in keeping with the regulation-making power for local authority accounts for low-emission zones under section 22.
Amendment 310, which is in Jamie Greene’s name, would constrain how local authorities could use the income that would be derived from enforcement of the parking prohibitions in the bill, and would provide that the income could be used only for certain transport-related purposes in the local authority’s area.
Amendments 314 and 315 would make related changes to Scottish ministers’ powers to make regulations about local authority accounts. They would remove the power to specify in regulations how a surplus in a local authority account could be applied, and would add a new power for ministers to specify the information that the accounts must contain about how local authorities have complied with their duties under amendment 310.
I have sympathy with what Jamie Greene seeks to achieve with his amendments. It is my intention that, in making regulations under section 55 of the bill, it would be specified that any surplus in accounts that are connected with enforcement of parking prohibitions will be required to be used for specified transport-related purposes.
In my view, the flexibility that is afforded by regulations is important in order to ensure that the transport purposes for which funds may be used are not drawn too narrowly, and to allow scope to respond to changing priorities. That said, I am happy to consider before stage 3 whether it can be made clearer in the bill that the purposes that may be specified in regulations are limited to transport-related purposes.
I therefore ask Jamie Greene to seek to withdraw amendment 310 and not to move amendments 314 and 315. I ask that the committee reject them, if he does press amendment 310 and move the other amendments. I also ask the committee to support my amendment 157.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I am out of step with all my political colleagues and with almost every member of the Parliament in that, as a matter of principle, I oppose hypothecation. That is because I believe that it is perfectly proper that funds are raised and penalties imposed for public purposes, and that they should be allocated to things that serve a public purpose regardless of where the money came from.
There is also a practical issue about hypothecation, which applies in this case, as it applies in others. The success of penalty charges should lead to their raising no revenue whatsoever, which would impoverish the practical purposes for which one would hypothecate money.
However, I understand that the introduction of hypothecation in policy areas is often a lever for persuading the general public that the policy intention is a good one because the money will be spent for good purposes. I have no objection to charges being made for services that are rendered, of course.
I do not intend to make an issue of this when we come to make a decision, but I have a permanent objection to hypothecation. I always feel uncomfortable about this sort of suggestion and will continue to do so, although I recognise that there are probably only two other members in the entire Parliament who agree with me.
The Convener
I ask Jamie Greene to wind up, and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 157.
Jamie Greene
I thank Stewart Stevenson for his comments, although following them, I am still entirely unclear about whether he supports my amendments. It is rather early in the morning to be talking about hypothecation policy. However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary is all over the matter.
I appreciate the feedback. I lodged my amendments earnestly and in good faith to try to give the public a general message that the revenues that will be raised from prohibitions will be put to good use. I think that Mr Stevenson alluded to that.
As we discuss low-emission zones, it is important that we take the public with us on a positive journey in order to improve driver behaviour, and it is important that they see the consequences in terms of financial penalties and where the revenue from them might be spent.
I appreciate that putting into a bill a prescriptive list about how money can be spent might come across as a constraint, but that is not the intention. The intention is to have a narrow focus of guidance on how the money will be spent. If the cabinet secretary and his team are willing to discuss with me and others before stage 3 how we can use the bill to strengthen that, so that it is not just up to the whim of regulation—we have not seen what regulations might state, so it is hard to tell whether they will meet the intention of my amendments—my office and I will be happy to have a productive conversation about how we can come up with some words to that effect for stage 3. On that premise, I seek to withdraw amendment 310.
Amendment 310, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 49—Enforcement of parking prohibitions
Amendment 148 not moved.
Amendment 149 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on parking prohibitions penalty charges: accessibility of information. Amendment 217, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendment 218.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
It was recently drawn to my attention that parking penalty notices in Glasgow lack plain English in relation to the right to challenge or appeal a notice. The right of appeal or to challenge a decision is an essential requirement of any such system.
The public are suspicious that local authorities are driven by revenue considerations in issuing tickets. Local authorities’ issuing of parking penalty notices through enforcement should not be perceived purely as a revenue issue. For fairness, they should design systems that make it relatively easy for those who believe that they have grounds on which to challenge their notice to do so.
I have visual evidence available to illustrate my point and I am happy to share it with the cabinet secretary. Parking notices are geared towards payment methods; there is just a tiny bit of small print on them that says:
“The Notice to Owner will also describe how to make formal representation regarding the issue of this Penalty Charge Notice.”
I recall that, in days gone by, grounds of appeal were also published, and notices would be clearer. I have gone as far as I can through the various stages, and nowhere is it said that people have the right to appeal and challenge: everything is geared towards payment.
I am probing the issue because I hope that the cabinet secretary will come with me on the point about making it relatively easy for people to see what their rights are.
My researchers checked the website to see how easy they would find it to find out how to appeal. The information is there, but it is not easy to find: it is not up front. People have the fundamental right to challenge a decision by a public body—even a parking notice.
Amendment 218 would ensure that such information would be accessible to people with disabilities.
I move amendment 217.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
I agree with amendment 217, but I have a question about the practical terms of amendment 218. The amendment says that regulations
“must include provision requiring that notification of a penalty charge is available in formats that are accessible to individuals who have a ... mental disability”.
Can Pauline McNeill explain how that would happen? I am not clear what she is asking for in the amendment.
The Convener
Perhaps we can come to that in the summing up.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 217 and 218 seek to introduce a requirement that regulations that are associated with enforcement of parking prohibitions will ensure that penalty charge notices contain information on how to appeal, and are
“available in formats that are accessible to individuals who have a sensory, physical or mental disability.”
I recognise the importance of making sure that the process of enforcement and appeals, including the information that is contained in penalty charge notices, is clear and transparent for everyone. I am happy to confirm that the regulations that will be made will make provision regarding reviews and appeals, including the grounds of review or appeal, in connection with imposition of penalty charges.
The design of the penalty charge notice that is currently used by 21 local authorities in Scotland already provides to the motorist information on how to appeal against the penalty charge notice, and what happens thereafter. It is intended that regulations that will be made under section 49(1) will provide that the content of penalty charge notices for parking prohibitions contains similar information. Therefore, I do not consider amendment 217 to be necessary.
On amendment 218, the regulations will also make provision on notification of a penalty charge, including the form, content and method of notification. There is ample flexibility in the regulation-making power in section 49(1) to ensure that accessibility requirements are taken into account.
In addition to that, the committee will be aware that under the Equality Act 2010, local authorities must make “reasonable adjustments” to remove barriers that might discriminate against disabled people. Such reasonable adjustments already include ensuring that penalty charge notices are available in accessible formats—for example, in large font or in Braille. I note, too, that the 2010 act already contains clear definitions of what is meant by “disability”, whereas amendment 218 does not.
08:30I ask Pauline McNeill to seek to withdraw amendment 217 and not to move amendment 218. I urge the committee not to support them, if the amendments are pressed.
Pauline McNeill
I thank Mike Rumbles for his question. Amendments 217 and 218 are aimed at addressing the issue that the cabinet secretary outlined, where sensory or other impairments might make it difficult for someone to understand how to go through the process of appeal. I am content with the cabinet secretary’s response and am pleased that the issue has been addressed in the bill.
Therefore, I seek to withdraw amendment 217.
Amendment 217, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 218 not moved.
Amendment 311 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 311 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 311 disagreed to.
Amendment 312 not moved.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
Section 50—Power to install approved devices
Amendment 150 not moved.
Amendments 151 and 152 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Section 51—Removal of motor vehicles parked contrary to parking prohibitions
Amendment 153 not moved.
Amendment 154 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Section 52—Moving motor vehicles parked contrary to parking prohibitions
Amendment 155 not moved.
Amendment 156 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
Section 54—Arrangements in connection with enforcement
Amendment 313 not moved.
Section 54 agreed to.
Section 55—Accounts
Amendment 314 not moved.
Amendment 157 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 315 not moved.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
Section 56 agreed to.
Section 57—Ministerial guidance
The Convener
The next group is entitled “Parking prohibitions: guidance”. Amendment 158, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group on its own.
Michael Matheson
Section 57 requires local authorities to have regard to ministerial guidance in exercising their functions under part 4 of the bill. The purpose of amendment 158 is to clarify that the parking standards guidance will apply to local authorities, regardless of whether the functions were conferred on them in their capacity as local authorities or as traffic authorities. On reflection since the bill’s introduction, we have deemed that it would be prudent to put that beyond doubt.
I move amendment 158.
Amendment 158 agreed to.
Section 57, as amended, agreed to.
Section 58—Interpretation of Part 4
Amendments 159 and 160 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 161 not moved.
The Convener
Amendment 162, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group on its own.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 162 is a technical amendment that seeks to ensure that, if a local authority is considering exempting a pavement from the pavement parking prohibition or looking to place a traffic sign or approved device, it should do so only with the consent of, or in conjunction with, the relevant traffic authority, should that not be the local authority. That will remove any ambiguity.
I move amendment 162.
Amendment 162 agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
After section 58
The Convener
The next group is on parking on a cycle track. Amendment 163, in the name of Colin Smyth, is the only amendment in the group.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 163 addresses an issue that arises from the decriminalisation of parking enforcement, which a number of local councils have raised with me. At last week’s committee meeting, the cabinet secretary confirmed that parking in cycle lanes is banned under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. However, there is a problem with enforcement of the ban. When a mandatory cycle lane has been introduced without a traffic regulation order, enforcement cannot be decriminalised. In practical terms, that means that, often, only the police are able to enforce the ban, even in areas with decriminalised parking enforcement, in which the council enforces other parking offences. That is a clear anomaly.
Parking in cycle lanes is a hazard and it is right that it is banned, but the ban is meaningless if it is not properly enforced. Although enforcement can be decriminalised through the use of a TRO, that places a significant burden on councils, simply to give them the power to enforce an existing prohibition. Amendment 163 seeks to address that by allowing local authorities to issue civil fines in relation to the ban. I have suggested regulations but, if members believe that there is a different way of achieving the same aim, I would be happy to discuss alternative approaches.
I move amendment 163.
Jamie Greene
I tried to lodge a similar amendment but the legislation team advised that Colin Smyth had beaten me to it. For that reason, I am happy to support amendment 163. However, if, technically, it is not the way to approach the issue, I would be happy to work with other parties and the cabinet secretary on suitable wording.
If Colin Smyth is minded not to press the amendment, I will not press it. However, he raises an important point. Parking on cycle lanes has become an issue and we have spoken at length about how we can address that through regulation. Using the bill as a method of addressing the issue is an important suggestion. We probably all share the concern over the practice, but it is a case of how we can ensure that it is properly addressed. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will enlighten us.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 163 calls for the insertion in the bill of a new part that relates to parking on a cycle track. I appreciate the intention behind Colin Smyth’s amendment to encourage more active travel, but the amendment is not required.
Amendment 163 seeks to amend section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 by inserting a new subsection 6A to confer powers on local authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices to motorists who park on a cycle track. However, the amendment is unnecessary as parking on a cycle track is already a criminal offence under section 129(6) of the 1984 act. If a local authority wishes to charge drivers for parking on cycle lanes, it can do so by obtaining decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Currently, 21 local authorities have those powers, and they can and do undertake enforcement restrictions on cycle tracks.
For completeness, I note that there are technical difficulties with the amendment in that it seeks to place the regulation-making power into section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, which deals with miscellaneous summary offences, despite the fact that the amendment does not seek to create a new offence. Instead, it seeks to enable regulations to be made that can confer a power on local authorities to charge motorists.
Furthermore, the amendment refers to fixed-penalty notices, but they can be issued in Scotland only by the procurator fiscal or a police constable. They are also backed with a power of criminal prosecution if unpaid. The appropriate term for a local authority charge is a penalty charge notice.
Even if those technical difficulties were resolved, I consider that the proposed amendment is not required because the powers already exist in criminal and civil law. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 163. If the amendment is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.
Jamie Greene
Are you confirming that any form of parking in any form of cycle lane that has not been allowed by a local authority’s decriminalised process is enforceable by either a police officer or a traffic warden? Does that include advisory cycle lanes and more statutorily formal types of cycle lane?
Michael Matheson
No. If the cycle lane is in an area that has not been decriminalised, it is a matter for the police to enforce. The police have the powers to deal with that. If it is in a decriminalised area, it is for the local authority to deal with. However, local authorities also have a responsibility to make sure that they have TROs in place for the enforcement of the ban. That is a legal requirement to make the provision enforceable in law. Local authorities must put in place a TRO so that they can issue a penalty charge notice.
Colin Smyth
The cabinet secretary has missed the point of amendment 163, and I would be happy if he wanted to intervene to clarify the position. My understanding—this has certainly been raised by a number of local authorities—is that where they have decriminalised parking, they cannot enforce the ban unless they have passed a TRO. A TRO is not required for a mandatory cycle lane, as far as I am aware. If the local authority has not passed a TRO, it cannot enforce—
Michael Matheson
For the local authority to enforce any provision under the decriminalised arrangements, it has to have a TRO in place. It has to have a legal basis on which to enforce the penalty. The local authority cannot simply issue penalty charges for anything that it chooses; it needs to have a legal basis for doing that. There is no getting round the fact that there needs to be a provision in place that gives the local authority the power to issue a penalty charge notice for an obstruction on a cycle way or in a part of the street that has a TRO in place. Local authorities cannot get round the fact that a TRO has to be in place to make the penalty enforceable.
Colin Smyth
I thank the cabinet secretary for that, but therein lies the anomaly. The Government allows a local authority to introduce a mandatory cycle lane without a TRO, but then says that if it does not have a TRO, it cannot enforce the cycle way.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Is the point not that if the local authority cannot enforce it, the police can, so somebody can enforce it?
Michael Matheson
That is correct.
Colin Smyth
The anomaly is that everything else in a local authority area, when it has been decriminalised, is a matter for the council, except for cycle lanes—
Michael Matheson
On that point—
Colin Smyth
Please let me finish the point. Why does the Government allow a local authority to have a mandatory cycle lane without a TRO if it is saying that the local authority must have a TRO in order to enforce a penalty for parking in the cycle lane? That is the question that the Government needs to answer.
08:45Michael Matheson
There is some confusion here. Councils need to have a TRO in place in order to be able to enforce a penalty charge notice. If a cycle lane is advisory, they do not need to have a TRO in place. If a cycle lane is obstructed, that is clearly an issue; the police can deal with that through criminal law. However, where it has been decriminalised, the council needs to have a TRO in place. That is how the process operates, and there is no way round it. If a council does not have a TRO in place for a parking restriction at schools, in effect, it could be in a position in which it could not legally enforce a penalty charge notice.
Colin Smyth
The committee has heard on a number of occasions about the challenges of the TRO process for local authorities. Indeed, one of the explanations that was given by the Government for not backing the Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Scotland) Bill was that it was going to look at enforcement on that.
The reality is that, with or without a TRO, parking in a mandatory cycle lane is banned. However, as it stands, that cannot be enforced by councils—even in areas with decriminalised parking enforcement—without a TRO. I think that there is an anomaly; I am happy not to press amendment 163 at this stage, in the hope that we can discuss a way forward, but I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at stage 3 if those issues are not addressed. Local councils have raised concerns and I hope that the Government will take them on board.
Amendment 163, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on workplace parking and the establishment and review of licensing schemes. Amendment 7, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 7A, 7D, 7B, 7C, 8, 8E, 8A, 8F, 8B, 8G, 8C, 8H, 8D, 9, 9A, 9C, 9B, 9D, 10, 10D, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10C, 10F, 10G, 11, 11A, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, 13A, 14, 14A, 26 and 318.
If amendment 8E is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 8A; if amendment 8B is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 8G; and if amendment 8G is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 8C—that is all due to pre-emptions. It will all become clearer when we get to that point.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to my amendments on the workplace parking levy. As the committee will be aware, there has been a lot of coverage of this issue over the past few months, much of it ill-informed. As we consider the amendments, it is important to focus on what they will do and the positive benefits that the workplace parking levy can yield.
Let us take a step back—we are facing a climate emergency, so we need as many tools as possible to be available to address it. No one is saying that the workplace parking levy alone will do that, but it is clear that we need as many levers as possible to be available.
Local authorities also need tools to manage transport in their areas and to raise revenue to help them to do that. My amendments are based on the principle of localism. It will be for local authorities to determine whether they wish to implement a workplace parking levy; there is no requirement to do so. I will pick up on the details of the proposals when I speak to subsequent amendments, but I will pick up on some key points first.
This is a power, not a duty; it will empower local authorities to act and to make decisions locally. Those decisions will have to be made within a framework set by primary legislation, regulations and guidance. The framework has the key underpinning of requirements for consultation, a local impact assessment, and the investment of funds raised from the levy in local transport projects identified in a local transport strategy.
Fundamentally, the proposals address issues that we all agree need to be addressed. The First Minister has declared a climate emergency and we recognise transport’s role in that.
I turn to the detail of my amendments. Amendment 7—together with amendment 9—will permit local authorities to put in place a licensing scheme requiring any person who provides workplace parking at their premises to hold a licence and to pay charges under that licence according to the number of parking places that are provided. It is a premises-based levy.
Local authorities that want to introduce a licensing scheme for workplace parking must have a local transport strategy and must consider that introducing the levy will facilitate the achievement of policies in that strategy. A criticism of the workplace parking levy is that it is simply a money-raising measure. That is not the case: the link to a local transport strategy means that a levy can be introduced only within a clearly articulated strategic context.
Amendment 8 defines what constitutes a workplace parking place. Workplace parking places are identified by reference to the reason for parking and who is parking. Accordingly, a workplace parking place is a parking place at any premises that is occupied for the purpose of attending a place where the person providing the parking place carries out a business. “Business” has a wide meaning and encompasses not only the carrying out of any trade, profession, vocation or undertaking but the provision of education and the exercise of public functions.
Only parking for business purposes, including parking by workers, agents and suppliers of the person providing the parking place, is covered. Parking in a purely personal capacity, such as parking when shopping at a local supermarket, is not covered.
Amendment 8 will give the Scottish ministers a power to vary the provisions by regulation. Such flexibility to respond to changing and future circumstances is necessary.
Amendment 10 is important, because it sets out the detailed requirements for consultation on a proposed scheme and impact assessments. There has been criticism of the lack of consultation on the proposal and the fact that there has been no impact assessment. I welcome the committee’s work through its evidence sessions and online survey. It was interesting to hear a nuanced and balanced argument from a range of views.
John Mason
If we agree to these amendments, the bill will only enable the approach; a council such as Glasgow City Council will then have to go through its own process to introduce a workplace parking levy. Will councils have to do their own consultations on their proposals?
John Finnie
That is correct. Amendment 10 underpins the reality of the consultative nature of the proposals. There are strong duties on local authorities to consult on a proposed scheme and on plans to amend or revoke a scheme. There must be clarity on the scheme’s objectives; the area that it will cover; exemptions; what people can expect to pay; what the funds will be used for; and how the scheme will address the objectives of the local transport strategy. There must also be an impact assessment, to consider the impact on the people who might have to pay charges and on the environment.
Amendment 11 gives the Scottish ministers the power to make regulations about the procedures for making, amending and revoking a workplace parking licensing scheme.
Amendment 12 gives the Scottish ministers and local authorities the power to have a local inquiry into proposals to make, amend or revoke a workplace parking levy scheme. I see that very much as a tool to be used if needed, rather than a regular part of the development of a scheme. The amendment also requires a local authority to await the completion of the inquiry before implementing a proposal—we might imagine that to be self-evident, but it is important to spell it out in the bill.
Amendment 13 provides for a licensing scheme to set out procedural matters in relation to the granting and issuing of licences, licence conditions and so on. Amendment 14 specifies what must and may be included in licences.
Amendments 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D relate to the scope and content of licensing schemes. Amendment 7A, in Mike Rumbles’s name, seeks to ensure that licences can be required only if more than 10 workplace parking places are provided. It is not appropriate for the bill to take such a restrictive approach. Local authorities might decide—as Nottingham City Council did—that people who provide fewer than a specified number of parking places should be exempt, and the appropriateness of doing that and the number itself is best determined with regard to local circumstances. There should also be flexibility to change the number as and when appropriate.
Pauline McNeill’s amendments 7B and 7C specify particular assessments of displacement, the impacts on poverty and the implications for workers that a local authority should carry out in advance of the introduction of a scheme. My amendment 10 will require that
“Before making, amending or revoking a ... scheme, a local authority”
should
“prepare and publish ... an assessment of the impacts of the proposal”,
specifically on
“persons who may have to pay charges”
and on
“the environment.”
I believe that amendment 10 addresses the aim of Pauline McNeill’s amendments.
Peter Chapman’s amendment 7D would require a scheme to be reviewed annually. On the face of it, the amendment looks as though it would be a simple tweak to improve accountability. However, under amendment 7, local authorities will need to set out how they will review
“the operation and effectiveness of the scheme”.
I am minded to let local authorities make that decision.
Amendments 8E, 8A, 8F, 8B, 8G, 8C, 8H and 8D relate to the definition of “workplace parking places”. Mike Rumbles’s amendments 8A and 8C are intended to leave out “business customer” in relation to the definition of “workplace parking”. Such people are those who, in the course of their business, park at the premises of another business of which they are a client or customer. An example might be a property developer parking for a meeting with their accountant. Perhaps Mr Rumbles’s concern is that the term might catch people who park at supermarkets to pick up their shopping. I covered that point earlier, so I hope that that concern has been addressed. The provision is about parking in the course of business only.
It is not clear to me what Mike Rumbles is seeking to achieve with amendment 8B. If his intention is to prevent students and others who park to attend education or training courses from paying the charge, amendment 8B will not have that effect, because such parking would still be part of the definition of a “workplace parking place” in subsection (1) of the proposed new section that will be introduced by my amendment 8. In any event, there is no obvious reason why students should not be required to pay the charge in towns and cities where the levies are introduced. Indeed, young people are a key demographic that we should be encouraging to adopt active and sustainable modes of transport.
Dean Lockhart’s amendment 8E would have the effect of restricting the definition of “workplace parking” to parking by workers and members of bodies whose affairs are controlled by their members. That would mean that charges could not be levied on parking by agents or suppliers of a business, business customers or visitors, or people who attend an education or training course. The question that I have to ask is why we should exclude those groups. Again, there might be the concern that a “business customer” would cover people who park in a local supermarket, but that is simply not the case.
Dean Lockhart’s amendment 8F would remove parking that is provided by a third party from the definition of “workplace parking”. In practice, that would mean that, if a company were to lease spaces in another premises to provide workplace parking, no charges would be payable. Again, the question is why that should be the case. Not only would that be against the spirit of the proposal; it could create a massive loophole.
Dean Lockhart’s amendments 8G and 8H are concerned with definitions. Amendment 8G would have the effect of removing the definitions of “business”, “business customer”, “business visitor” and “Government department”. Amendment 8G is similar to amendment 8B, but it would also exclude parking at premises that are used by Government departments and other public bodies, which would be very unfair. For what reason in principle should we exempt such bodies from the levy that others will have to pay? I wonder whether that was the intention behind amendment 8G.
Dean Lockhart’s amendment 8H would modify the definition of a “worker” and would mean that a charge that arises from a scheme could be applied only to parking by permanent full-time workers. Aside from being against the spirit of the scheme, amendment 8H would create potential loopholes and would provide a potential incentive to employers to not offer full-time contracts, in order to avoid paying the levy. Surely that is not the intention behind amendment 8H.
Mike Rumbles’s amendment 8D would remove the Scottish ministers’ powers to alter, by regulation, the circumstances in which workplace parking is provided. In practice, that would mean that categories that are set out in amendment 8 would be fixed and could not be adjusted later if need be, depending on the experience of how schemes are operating, without primary legislation. Regulations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and amendment 8D would make the scheme inflexible.
I turn to amendments 9A, 9B, 9C and 9D. John Mason’s amendment 9A is interesting. By seeking to extend the powers to make a workplace parking licence scheme to regional transport partnerships, it recognises that transport patterns and issues are not set by local authority boundaries. That is why my amendment 9 allows for joint working by local authorities.
John Mason
Does John Finnie see any role for RTPs? Colin Smyth gave the example of people coming from one area into a city and paying the fee, while the place that they came from would not benefit. We also heard about the idea of the park-and-ride scheme in Nottingham, where the park and ride might be in a separate local authority area. Would that be a voluntary process? Does John Finnie not see the RTP as having any role in that?
09:00John Finnie
In any case, RTPs have an overarching role with regard to their constituent parts. However, the scheme is clear that my amendments will allow for joint working by local authorities. That is a better approach, because there are unintended consequences of RTPs. In addition, allowing powers to be exercisable concurrently by local authorities and RTPs could give rise to the potential for confusion and, indeed, duplication, which none of us wants.
Amendment 9C, in the name of Mike Rumbles, attempts to introduce the precondition that a local authority can make a scheme only if it
“is satisfied that there is an adequate level of public transport services in its area”.
Superficially, that looks attractive. However, it falls down in a number of ways. For example, how does one define
“an adequate level of public transport services”?
Moreover, improving public transport might be the objective in the local transport strategy that the scheme is being set up to support. Fundamentally, the focus should be on local decision making.
I have a number of brief comments still to make, convener. I appreciate that this is time consuming.
The Convener
I am listening patiently—please continue.
John Finnie
Colin Smyth’s amendment 9B would make ministerial approval a precondition of a scheme, which goes against the very principle of localism upon which the scheme is founded. The power of local accountable decision making is important and underpins my amendments.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 9D seeks to impose a number of conditions on a scheme, ranging from constraints on the making of a scheme to restrictions on how the scheme operates. The amendment is a classic case of unnecessary micromanagement. What is wrong with local authorities making decisions on the basis of impact assessments and full consultation?
Jamie Greene’s amendment 10D calls for a range of reports to be prepared by the local authority. However, subsection (4) of the proposed new section that my amendment 10 will insert already requires an assessment of the effects on “the environment” and on
“persons who may have to pay charges”.
I cannot see what amendment 10D would add to that.
Colin Smyth’s amendment 10A would require local authorities to “hold a referendum” on whether proposed workplace parking licence schemes should proceed, and his amendment 10B would give the Scottish ministers the powers to make provisions about the franchise, conduct and administration of a referendum. I ask Colin Smyth why he has such little faith in our local authorities. Under my amendments, local authorities would have to consult on the scheme, and they are—as we are—subject to the referendum of the ballot box.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 10E would require the statement of scheme objectives to say how the authority
“intends to use the net proceeds of the scheme”.
However, subsection (3)(c) of the proposed new section that my amendment 10 will insert would already require a local authority to set out
“how it intends to apply any net proceeds of the scheme”.
Amendment 10E would therefore be an unnecessary duplication.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 10F and Peter Chapman’s amendment 10G seek to add specific categories of assessment that a local authority must carry out. Jamie Greene’s amendment would require assessment for local businesses and island communities. Peter Chapman’s amendment would require it for local businesses and island communities as well as for local authority revenue, schools, public bodies, other statutory bodies and health boards. Given that the requirement to carry out an assessment of those who will be affected by the levy is already in my amendment, it is not clear what those amendments would add.
Mike Rumbles’s amendment 10C would require an assessment of the effects of the proposed scheme on
“the displacement of vehicles and the resulting effect on residents in, and in the vicinity of, the area to which the proposal relates”.
That is an important issue, which I would expect to be picked up by the assessment of the scheme proposals on the environment, which my amendment already requires.
Amendment 12B from Jamie Greene would allow the Scottish Parliament, by a majority vote, to cause a local inquiry to be held into a proposal for a workplace parking licensing scheme. However, again, that is a local authority matter that is best dealt with at local authority level—we need to respect that.
Amendment 13A from Jamie Greene appears to do two things. It would remove the power of Scottish ministers to
“make, or require or permit workplace parking schemes to include, provision about reviews of, and appeals against, decisions in relation to workplace parking licences”.
As a result, there would be no provision for such reviews and appeals.
Secondly, it would remove the offence of intentionally providing
“false or misleading information in or in connection with”
licence applications, which means that there would be no specific offence relating to fraudulent statements in licence applications. I have to ask whether Jamie Greene really wants to remove rights of appeal and encourage fraudulent statements.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 14A seeks to remove the requirement that workplace parking licences
“specify the maximum number of ... vehicles which may be parked at those premises”
that are subject to the licence. That provision is important for establishing licensing requirements. In order to run a scheme, local authorities will have to specify the number of vehicles as a key part of establishing the charge that is due. Amendment 14A would cut across that and, as such, I cannot support it.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 318 would introduce a power for local authority residents to “petition the local authority” for a review of a workplace parking licensing scheme. If a petition is
“signed by more than 20% of residents of the ... area, the authority must carry out a review”.
In practice, what does that represent? The amendment appears to be an attempt to open another front in the campaign against workplace parking levies.
My proposals are founded on principles of localism and are underpinned by consultation, requirements to carry out impact assessments and, fundamentally, the ballot box. I believe that those are the fundamentals that we should be guided by and, with such factors underpinning workplace parking schemes, amendment 318 is at best unnecessary and at worst a way for a minority to frustrate the successful operation of schemes by local authorities.
I have addressed all the amendments in the group.
I move amendment 7.
The Convener
I understand that you had a lot of ground to cover but, by my calculations, if we all take a similar length of time, we will not be finished before the Planning (Scotland) Bill session in the chamber this afternoon. Bearing in mind that Mr Finnie is seeking to introduce a major amendment, I gave him a certain amount of leeway, but I ask members to remember that others wish to speak, so their contributions should be as concise as possible.
I call Mr Rumbles to move amendment 7A.
Mike Rumbles
I will be very brief. I am disappointed by what I have heard from John Finnie. There are some very constructive amendments here, but he is opposing them all.
With amendment 7A, I am trying to avoid the risk of judicial review of the legislation, because I am well aware that in planning law—for a change of use, for example—there is a requirement to have workplace parking. If we approve amendment 7 unamended, I genuinely believe that there is a real risk of judicial review, especially from smaller companies that have suppliers.
John Mason
Will the member give way on that point?
Mike Rumbles
No. On my amendment 8A, it is all very well for John Finnie to say that business customers do not include supermarket customers, but we are making the law and amendment 8 includes business customers—the customers of a business. I am trying to remove the reference to “business customer”, so that customers of supermarkets are not charged. We only have John Finnie’s word for it, so we have to look at the actual wording of the law that we are making.
I will not say much more, except that I find it completely amazing that John Finnie does not wish to accept my amendment 9C. The whole purpose of the proposed provisions is contained in amendment 9C, which says,
“the local authority proposing to make the scheme”
must be
“satisfied that there is an adequate level of public transport services in its area”.
That is the whole point of John Finnie’s amendments, so if he will not accept my amendment in order to achieve that, it makes the whole thing a farce.
John Mason
Will the member give way on that point?
Mike Rumbles
No, because I have finished speaking.
I move amendment 7A.
Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)
Very briefly, my amendment 7D would simply mean that if a workplace parking levy is introduced, it must be reviewed annually. That is important to assess the impact that it is having on the local workforce and employers. I do not believe that it is sufficient to allow local authorities to decide if and when they will review what the WPL is achieving. That would allow far too much leeway, so an annual assessment is correct.
My amendment 10G simply outlines various bodies that must be consulted before a local authority prepares and publishes details of a workplace parking levy. Again, it is a relevant and modest amendment. I hope that both of my amendments will be supported.
The Convener
I call Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 7B and the other amendments in the group.
Pauline McNeill
Similarly to Mike Rumbles’s amendment, amendment 7B seeks to ensure that an assessment of parking in the surrounding area is taken into account. Nottingham’s experience was that there was considerable displacement of traffic as a result of the parking levy. If such an assessment is not undertaken, there could be a serious impact on local people.
John Mason
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Pauline McNeill
I will.
John Mason
I wonder why the member feels that that needs to be in the bill. When a city such as Glasgow introduces, say, parking meters, it will consider the knock-on effect on the surrounding area, and the same applies to parking around the stadia. Does Pauline McNeill think that we cannot trust Glasgow City Council to consider the knock-on effects?
Pauline McNeill
Here we go. Can we trust Glasgow City Council? Lots of communities do not want extra traffic orders. It is a choice for them. It is not just a simple question of a local authority such as Glasgow City Council saying that, in order to stop displaced traffic, it will impose some restrictions on local communities. I am sure that the member will appreciate that amendment 7B is a probing amendment. The issue arose in Nottingham, so I suggest that it is legitimate for the committee to probe it.
Amendment 7C seeks to ensure that an assessment of the likely impact of the parking levy on poverty in the surrounding area is made and taken into account. In-work poverty remains a serious problem in Scotland, with 182,000 children living in poverty despite one person in their household being in work. The committee heard in evidence that many people rely on their cars to get to work, and many poor people do so because public transport, even in Glasgow, is expensive. A quarter of the people who live on the periphery of the city have to catch at least two buses to get to work, so we can see why, if people have a car at their disposal, using it is an easy choice to make.
Tens of thousands of people cannot afford to pay more, given the cost of living, yet the levy may be passed on. I do not believe that it will result in people getting out of their cars, because public transport, even in Glasgow, is not good enough. The connectivity report that was produced recently acknowledges that public transport needs significant investment, even in Scotland’s largest city.
It is perfectly acceptable for legislators such as us to provide broad frameworks that include principles that we believe local authorities should adopt, such as poverty impact assessments being done. I came here to fight on certain issues, one of which is poverty. I do not see why the tackling of poverty cannot be included as a principle in any framework that is passed, with local authorities then deciding on further detail.
We also need to consider the impacts on shift workers and part-time workers. How would the scheme take them into account? I have consulted numerous workplaces, and people are concerned about that.
John Mason made a point about regional transport partnerships. I do not think that they are accountable enough to have such a power, and I do not think that that is where we should end up.
In Glasgow, it will be a decade before we see the requisite investment. In Nottingham, £9 million a year has been raised, which is not enough. Even in Scotland’s largest city, it will be a decade before public transport is good enough for people to choose not to drive.
On the question of a power to hold a referendum, John Finnie asked Colin Smyth why he has so little faith in local authorities. I would ask John Finnie why he has so little faith in the people to make decisions in their localities on whether they want a parking levy.
I support Jamie Greene’s amendments. People’s welfare and standards of living are matters for this Parliament, and it is our job to consider those things in deciding whether to pass legislation.
We have not heard much about how the levy would be enforced, but perhaps we will hear about that further down the line. However, I want to hear how the levy will impact on the lives of people who already face poverty.
09:15The Convener
I would normally call Dean Lockhart now to speak to amendment 8E, but he is involved in other business in the Parliament, so Jamie Greene will speak to that amendment.
Jamie Greene
I will speak only to Dean Lockhart’s amendments—I think that that is the protocol—and will speak to other amendments in the group, including my own, when it is my turn. Dean Lockhart sends his apologies. There was, perhaps, a lack of understanding on when the committee would address the issue. As we appreciate, MSPs have other committees and MSP duties to attend to. He has asked me to reflect upon his amendments.
Amendment 8E is similar, in some senses, to amendment 8A from Mike Rumbles, who has the right intention when he suggests leaving out business customers from the levy. It strikes me as strange to want customers of businesses to be included in the levy on the business that they are visiting. Neither the purpose nor the length of those visits is stipulated.
We would like to take our amendment further than amendment 8A to include suppliers of businesses. For example, many small businesses get parts delivered. I have a few in my constituency—I am sure Mr Lockhart does too—to which other small and medium-sized businesses deliver goods or provide contractual work for short periods to assist that business. It seems unfair for those assisting businesses to be penalised in the same way. That is the premise behind amendment 8E.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Surely you are not suggesting that people who turn up for half an hour—or even come to repair an air conditioning unit—will be expected to pay a parking levy, because that is not the intention.
Jamie Greene
I hope not. You are absolutely right. It would seem unfair for them to pay such a charge. However, with respect, when we read Mr Finnie’s amendments to the bill, a number of us felt that there was not enough security around the exemption of business customers from the charge. If the minister or, indeed, Mr Finnie, in summing up, can point us to the specific wording in the amendment that gives us comfort and security on that, we can take a view on whether we move our amendments. In the absence of that comfort, we read the amendments and took the view that our concern was not covered. I do not want a scenario in Mr Lyle’s constituency, in which customers who turn up at a small business are part of its levy scheme. We want to put their exclusion on the face of the bill. Why would it not be? I hope that other members will agree with me. [Interruption.]
Mr Stevenson says that this is nonsense, but it is not. He is welcome to intervene if he has comments to make.
The Convener
I ask the member to push on and to ignore any comments. I say to all committee members that although this is obviously an interesting subject that has caught the public eye, making comments about other’s views under one’s breath is not helpful. I ask people to refrain from doing so, and to look at the legislation. I ask Jamie Greene to continue on amendment 8E, which he agreed to speak to.
Jamie Greene
I have nothing further to say on amendment 8E.
Amendment 8F, in the name of Dean Lockhart, seeks to narrow down the definition of what constitutes a “relevant person” in the legislation, and stipulates that it applies only to the person who provides the parking place in question.
Amendment 8G would remove education and Government institutions from the definition of businesses, and, in relation to amendment 8E, deletes the section defining business customers and clients, or customers of the “relevant person”. I know that we will talk about that in greater detail in the exemption section, so I will leave comments around removals of places until that discussion.
Amendment 8H, in Mr Lockhart’s name, seeks to ensure that only employees who work full time on permanent contracts are subject to the conditions of the levy. That would ensure that part-time or short-term contractual staff—such as those doing day temping jobs, which is common practice in many businesses—are not subject to the levy, which would relate only to permanent full-time staff.
John Mason
How would a job share be affected?
Jamie Greene
A job share in what respect?
John Mason
If two people do 18 and a half hours each, instead of one person doing 37 hours.
Jamie Greene
If a person is earning a salary for 18 and a half hours a week, it would be unfair for them to be forced to pay the same levy as someone who is earning a salary for 37 hours a week. Therefore, the exemption should apply.
The Convener
I call John Mason to speak to amendment 9A and the other amendments in the group.
John Mason
First, let me say that I very much support the workplace parking levy and amendments 7 to 14 in the name of John Finnie. It is worth stressing that the amendments only empower local authorities—this is about decentralising and giving power to local authorities, which might or might not take the powers up. Some have already said that they will take them up and some have not. The committee was impressed by Nottingham City Council’s example of what it has done and the success of that. A number of other English authorities are looking at following that model.
We must discourage people from unnecessarily taking their cars to work, especially in city centres such as Glasgow and Edinburgh—including MSPs in this Parliament. Glasgow has low car ownership, so, on the whole, the levy does not affect poorer people; it affects richer people. It is a tax on the elite. It is, broadly, a progressive measure and we should support it.
I especially liked the park and ride system in Nottingham. We need to use that system more in and around Glasgow.
Pauline McNeill
Do you think that the levy is an issue for members of the elite, who have cars, and that poor people do not have cars? Just in case you are wrong about that, would you support exemptions for those who earn, for example, less than the living wage?
John Mason
It is a levy on the employer. The employer does not need to pass the charge on at all.
Pauline McNeill
Who are the elite that you are referring to?
John Mason
For example, in this Parliament, the cleaners and the technical staff do not have parking places. The MSPs have parking places.
Members: That is not correct.
Pauline McNeill
It is a point of information but you are contradicting yourself. You said that the levy will not necessarily get passed on to the workers. Who are the elite? If the levy is to be placed only on the employer, you suggest that it will never be passed on. On the other hand, you say that cleaners will not pay it. Which is it?
John Mason
At present, the people in the city centres who are getting parking places are directors and bosses. It is different out of town but, in city centres, on the whole, ordinary workers are not getting free parking places.
Jamie Greene
People are watching this meeting and hearing that only the elite—directors and rich businessmen—get free parking spaces at their place of work; they must be watching in horror at what members of this committee are saying. Mr Mason, it is not true that only the elite park at their place of work. Every day, normal workers park at their place of work. Can you not see that?
John Mason
Not in the city centre. Is the member seriously arguing that ordinary workers commonly get free parking places in the city centres?
Jamie Greene
Often, yes.
The Convener
As a member of this Parliament who often works later in the evening, I do not believe that it is just MSPs who get car parking spaces. Often, when I turn up on a Sunday evening, a Monday evening or an evening during the week, security staff and people who come in to get the Parliament ready for the next day use the parking spaces—perhaps not during the day, but at night—as much as any MSP. Will John Mason accept that point?
John Mason
I accept that they get parking spaces if the MSPs do not require them. The norm is that parking spaces are for MSPs, company directors and those kinds of people. If people are travelling within Glasgow and Edinburgh, there is an extremely good public transport system and people should not normally need to take their cars for a 9-to-5 job and leave them sitting all day.
Of course there are people from outside the city—including the convener—who come from a great distance and for whom public transport does not work. Of course some people need to use their cars. However, the overall point of the levy is to reduce the level of traffic in the city centres, which is not sustainable and cannot keep growing. We need to tackle that issue.
Amendment 9A flags up the question of how the cabinet secretary and John Finnie think that RTPs might be involved. They are major players in transport. I take John Finnie’s point that there could be confusion and duplication, so I will not push it—there would be a lot of consequential amendments if I did. However, amendment 9A partly answers the question of how we can be more joined up. There are some extremely good examples of park-and-ride facilities, such as at Croy, which is in North Lanarkshire, although it would be Glasgow and Edinburgh that would raise the levy. We need to see the councils working together.
I accept that the proposal is that councils can work together, but I would like to hear the thoughts of John Finnie and the cabinet secretary on how that could be strengthened and how RTPs can be brought into the equation.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 9B would require parking levy schemes to be signed off by ministers, as is the case with LEZs and other similar schemes. It would provide additional oversight. I note that amendment 9B is supported by some organisations that support a workplace parking levy, such as Friends of the Earth.
John Finnie says that amendment 9B would go against his view that all decisions should be made by councils. However, his amendments provide national exemptions, which suggests that his localism is selective.
Amendments 10A and 10B would require a ballot to be held to introduce a scheme. That would democratise the process and ensure that it has public support. A similar ballot was held on the possibility of a congestion charge in Edinburgh, so there is precedent. Much has been said about consultation, but if it is so important, why not have the ultimate consultation and let people decide in a ballot? I echo the phrase that John Finnie used earlier: why do those who oppose this have so little faith in the public?
Jamie Greene
This group of amendments is quite large, so I will keep my comments to the amendments in my name. However, I will be supporting amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles, Pauline McNeill and Colin Smyth.
Amendment 9D, in my name, seeks to impose conditions on the local authority before it sets up a scheme. Members will see that amendment 9D adds paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) to subsection (2) of the new section that is proposed by amendment 9. That is because I think that it is right that a local authority should be able to demonstrate the need for the scheme; that the displacement of vehicles as a result of the scheme will not increase carbon pollution in the areas to which they are displaced; that any levy will not have a detrimental impact on employment levels or on the economy; and that a workplace parking levy cannot be introduced in an area where there is already a low-emission zone.
When we took evidence on the point of the levy, we were told that it was to deter people from driving into cities, but there are other means to do that. We were told that other cities have successfully introduced congestion charges to encourage people not to drive into cities, but where that is not possible, they have to pay the associated fee. That is the case in London. There are also low-emission zones that will tackle the sorts of vehicles that we do not want in our cities. Broadly speaking, there is cross-party support for those measures.
Since the idea was introduced, the Scottish Conservatives have been clear that we are opposed in principle to the workplace parking levy. We see it as a regressive tax on motorists and workers. Far from what Mr Mason said, it is not just rich business directors and owners who park at their place of work. If we passed the bill with the amendments that Mr Finnie has lodged, the levy could impact any worker in Scotland—other than those who we exempt—if a scheme is established in their local authority area.
09:30Amendment 9D stipulates that local authorities would have to publish an impact assessment. I appreciate Mr Finnie’s intentions in amendment 10 with regard to preparing and publishing information about a scheme and its objectives and
“an assessment of the impacts of the proposal”.
That is welcome, but I have taken the idea further. I want the bill to ensure that local authorities publish reports detailing the impact that a levy would have on
“low income households ... small and medium-sized businesses in the vicinity”
and
“persons with a disability or impairment”.
Those are the three groups that we as a Parliament should talk about when we look at introducing taxes, charges or levies. It is important that that is in the bill so that local authorities cannot look past those groups. As currently worded, amendment 10 does not dictate which groups must be consulted or say that there must be an assessment of the impact of the levy on those groups. We should focus on those three groups of people.
Amendment 10F would add an assessment of the impact on local businesses and island communities, which is important. The committee has spent a lot of time looking at our island communities, and it is right and proper that we look at assessing any levies on them by their local authority.
In my region, if North Ayrshire Council decided to introduce a levy as a result of the legislation, I would want it to perform robust impact assessments of the effect that the levy would have on the islands of Arran and Cumbrae, where, for example, public transport is limited at certain times of the day and many people simply have to drive to their place of work. In the case of some of the distilleries or production facilities on Arran, driving is the only way to get to work.
I want to ensure that we do not pass legislation that negatively impacts our island communities, bearing in mind the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and the additional duties that it confers on local authorities. I hope that members will consider that and support amendment 10F.
Amendment 11A is a technical amendment on how a scheme may be revoked.
I lodged amendment 12B because, if the Parliament does its job and sees that a levy is having a severe negative impact on the economy of an area of Scotland, we should be able to ask the local authority to review and possibly revoke its scheme. That would be a helpful power, which currently does not exist, for this Parliament to have. Amendment 12A is a technical amendment to facilitate that.
Amendment 14A would remove a requirement for licences in a scheme to
“specify the maximum number of ... vehicles which may be parked”
in a workplace. I see no tangible benefit in having a maximum number, as amendment 14, in the name of John Finnie, currently provides, so I want to remove that cap.
On the issue of petitions, I appreciate that there might be disagreement about whether 20 per cent is a suitable trigger and I am happy for members to amend that at the next stage. However, if it is the view of local residents and businesses that a levy is having a negative impact on their communities, businesses and local authority area but, despite the strength of support for review or revocation of the scheme, the local authority does not listen, I want to give power to the people in that respect. If feeling is strong—I am happy for the threshold of 20 per cent to be raised if members feel that that is too low—and local people are telling the local authority to stop a scheme as it is causing small businesses harm, it is only right that it should be forced to review the scheme. That would be a useful and welcome power to give people.
I am happy to leave my comments there, as other members have spoken at length to their amendments.
The Convener
I know that two members wish to speak. Unless anyone else wishes to add to that number, I will call Richard Lyle to start with.
Richard Lyle
In the past few months, I have made comments about the workplace parking levy. Since then, I have listened to the evidence that has been given by various organisations—in particular, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I have also listened to the debate about the climate emergency and to the people who are demonstrating outside the Parliament today.
From 2007 until 2009, I was the Scottish National Party’s group leader on COSLA, and prior to that I was a councillor for more than three decades. I therefore believe in localism, councils being able to take decisions on behalf of their communities, and the democratic process. I am coming up for my 43rd year in politics, in which time I have also learned that people scaremonger. I used to do so—just as other parties in the Parliament are now doing in relation to this policy. Some of the amendments that have been lodged and some of the comments that have been made are totally incorrect. I have therefore changed my view, so today I will support Mr Finnie’s proposal.
I believe that councils should be able to raise levies if they feel that they should do so. Some will use that power and others will not. I know that, at the end of the day, people will come back at me because of the comments that I made previously. So be it. I have been a politician for long enough to expect that. At the end of the day, I have made up my mind and will support Mr Finnie’s amendments.
The Convener
If no other member wishes to add anything, I would like to say something before I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up.
It is difficult for a convener to allow members’ own views to be represented and to represent the views of the committee, and there comes a time when they must take off their convener’s hat and say what they personally believe. I am now doing so and am speaking as a member of the committee.
First, I have listened carefully to the evidence that was given during our evidence sessions, which I am thankful that the committee was able to take. During the sessions, it became clear to me that there were three suggested ways of tackling emissions in towns, villages and cities: congestion charging, low-emission zones and workplace parking levies. It was also made clear that we could choose only one of those options and not multiples of them, because they were seen as conflicting with each other.
I also listened carefully to the evidence that was given to the committee by Nottingham City Council. It appears to me that that council’s area is completely different from the majority of areas in Scotland as far as public transport is concerned, in that it has excellent public transport provision that enables people not to take their cars into the city centre. In Scotland, the position is different. We have large areas of rural hinterland where people who have to travel into cities have few options for taking public transport. From my experience in such areas that I have worked in, I know that, if you get on a bus to go somewhere, you often have to catch the very same bus on its return journey to get back to where you have come from, and that you have to use that service without interruption if you are to make the right connections.
Having looked around at views on the matter and at what we heard in evidence, I have little doubt in my mind that employers would pass on this form of taxation to their employees—they would certainly ask them to pay their share—so I believe that the levy would become a tax on going to work, which I do not believe to be progressive.
We have discussed how people use car parks at odd times of the day, when people who work normal hours are not using them, so that they can service buildings and ensure that they are ready for the next working day, and I made an intervention on that during Mr Mason’s speech. I do not think that it is right that people who work outside normal working hours should have to pay such a tax.
I have also listened to what Mr Lyle has said about being a politician. I have not been—and never will be—a politician for 43 years. I got into politics so that I could make a stand on difficult decisions.
I therefore wish to make it abundantly clear at the outset of this process that I do not support the proposed workplace parking levy or any part of it. I do not believe that it will achieve anything from a climate point of view. I will vote for amendments where I see that they will produce a benefit should the proposal be agreed to, but I will not vote for the proposal itself, because I do not think that it is in the interests of people who go to work in Scotland.
Having made that statement, I put my convener’s hat back on. I thank committee members for allowing me to speak and not interrupting me. I now call on the cabinet secretary to comment.
Michael Matheson
John Finnie set out the case for giving local authorities the power to introduce workplace parking levies. As we consider the amendments, members will see that the proposal is carefully crafted and is very much about empowering local authorities and giving them the tools to address issues such as the climate emergency. No single action can do that, but we need all available powers at our disposal to meet those pressing challenges.
In the recent stage 1 debate on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, all parties were clear on the need for action. Spokespersons for various Opposition parties stated that
“We are facing a national environment and climate emergency”;
that we need
“to take further action”;
and that we should
“not ... postpone taking hard decisions.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2019; c 29, 25, 33.]
However, a modest and completely discretionary power for local authorities to act has attracted furious criticism from those very same parties.
I turn to the other amendments in the group, which range from those that appear to be well meaning to those that I can only assume are designed to frustrate the proposal. I firmly agree with John Finnie’s approach to localism in decision making, and I am disappointed at what appears to be a lack of confidence in local authorities from some members with regard to the use of those discretionary powers.
It is worth restating some of the key principles of John Finnie’s amendments. The proposal concerns a power for, not a duty on, local authorities. It is underpinned by duties to consult and to carry out impact assessments for persons who are affected as well as the environment. It is strategic, as it is linked to the achievement of activities that have been set out in a local transport strategy. Funds that are raised must be spent on the scheme and on transport-related activities.
On John Mason’s point about the role of RTPs, no local transport strategy can be shaped in isolation, and the drafting and development by a local authority of any strategy to support such a proposal will require due consultation with RTPs. That provision will be set out in guidance to accompany the legislation.
For those reasons, I support John Finnie’s amendments, and I cannot support the other amendments in the group.
The Convener
I call John Finnie to wind up on amendment 7.
John Finnie
There has been much discussion, so I will just leave the comments as they are.
The Convener
I ask Mike Rumbles to wind up on amendment 7A and to indicate whether he intends to press or withdraw it.
Mike Rumbles
I think that we are making bad law. The budget deal between the Scottish National Party and the Greens has shackled the committee in its work. It is quite obvious that the SNP and Green members are not accepting any of the constructive amendments that are designed to improve the bill, and we therefore cannot do our job.
Jamie Greene
Does Mr Rumbles share my frustration and sadness at the way in which we are legislating? We did nothing on the proposal at stage 1; it should have been introduced by the Government at stage 1 so that we as a committee would have had a proper chance to scrutinise it and to consult the public and businesses—the people who are going to be affected by it. I am deeply saddened by the process that we have gone through to squeeze it in at stage 2.
Mike Rumbles
I agree with that—I am deeply saddened. When I joined the Parliament 20 years ago, I thought that the great thing about it was the committee work. However, the SNP members are being whipped to support the Green amendment, and they are not accepting any other amendments—
John Mason
No.
Richard Lyle
No.
Mike Rumbles
Oh, it is quite obvious that they are. Come on—stop playing games. This is too important a matter for members to play games.
We have lodged constructive amendments to try to improve amendment 7. I plead with the transport secretary in that regard, because we have tried to be constructive throughout the process, so that we can make good law, and this is not a constructive approach.
We might not like amendment 7, but we can certainly improve it. I want us to have the opportunity to lodge similar amendments at stage 3, when I hope that we will have some time to debate them. I will not press amendment 7A, because I want the Presiding Officer to select a similar amendment for debate at stage 3, so that we can—I hope—make constructive changes to the approach.
Amendment 7A, by agreement, withdrawn.
09:45The Convener
I call Peter Chapman to move or not move amendment 7D.
Peter Chapman
I will move amendment 7D, but before I do that I would like to—
The Convener
Mr Chapman, you may move or not move the amendment, but you do not have the opportunity to debate it. We have had the debate.
Amendment 7D moved—[Peter Chapman].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7D be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7D disagreed to.
Amendment 7B moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7B disagreed to.
Amendment 7C moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7C be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 7C disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendments 8E, 8A, 8F, 8B, 8G, 8C, 8H and 8D not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 9 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendments 9A and 9C not moved.
Amendment 9B moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 9B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9B disagreed to.
Amendment 9D not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment 10 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 10D not moved.
Amendment 10A moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 10A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10A disagreed to.
Amendments 10B, 10E, 10C, 10F and 10G not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 11A not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendments 12A and 12B not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 13A not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 14A not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on workplace parking exemptions. Amendment 15, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 15A, 15B, 16, 16N, 16A, 16B, 16C, 16E, 16X, 16Y, 16AB, 16AC, 16D, 16L, 16F, 16G, 16V, 16H, 16I, 16J, 16K, 16O, 16P, 16Q, 16R, 16S, 16T, 16U, 16W, 16Z, 16AA, 16AD, 16AE, 16AF, 16AG, 16AI, 16AJ, 16AK, 16M, 16AH and 27. I point out that if amendment 15A is agreed to, amendment 15B will be pre-empted. Furthermore, if amendment 16M is agreed to, amendment 16AH will be pre-empted.
John Finnie
Much of the discussion around workplace parking levies has been about exemptions. Questions have been asked about what will be exempt, why groups would be exempt, and who will apply the exemptions. Amendment 15 sets out the basis for exemption under the scheme, and it covers four key areas. It requires that any workplace parking licensing scheme must include any national exemptions set by Scottish ministers as well as the national exemptions provided for in the bill. The proposed national exemptions in the bill are set out in my amendment 16.
Amendment 15 also gives local authorities the power to set further exemptions. That is a wide-ranging power, as those exemptions can apply to “specific premises” or premises with
“a specified number of parking places”,
or to “persons or motor vehicles”.
That is really important, as it allows local authorities to draw up a scheme in the light of local circumstances, and they will have a wide scope as to what exemptions they can apply and how they apply them.
The approach builds on the flexibility around how the scheme may be applied, as set out in my amendment 7. I firmly believe that the local level, not the national level, is where further exemptions should be determined. It is self-evident that informed decisions made at the local level will better meet the needs of an area. Decisions will be based on an understanding of local issues and preferred outcomes. My amendments ensure that a scheme can be tailored to meet local needs and circumstances. That is far removed from the rigid one-size-fits-all picture that opponents of the workplace parking levy have painted.
Amendment 15 also ensures that only one scheme can cover the same premises at any given time. It also gives Scottish ministers the power, by regulations, to provide for other exemptions or to restrict exemptions. My amendment 27 requires that such regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that any future proposals for national exemptions will face full and transparent scrutiny.
I firmly believe that the framework for exemptions delivers the clarity that is sought, while giving flexibility to implement local schemes to meet local needs.
Amendments 15A and 15B are on exemptions for small car parks. Amendment 15A, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeks to make a business with 15 parking places or fewer—or any higher number that the local authority determines—exempt from charges under any workplace parking levy scheme. Amendment 15B, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to set the figure at 20 parking places. The amendments cover the same ground as amendment 7A, in the name of Mike Rumbles, which we considered earlier. Colin Smyth wants the minimum threshold to be 15 parking places, Jamie Greene wants it to be 20 and Mike Rumbles wanted it to be 10.
10:00That variation makes my point that it is best left to the local authority to decide the matter. Why would we apply random thresholds at a national level to a local scheme? Let us leave the decisions to the people who have to design, plan, consult on, implement and assess the impact of a scheme—ultimately, they will have to justify their decisions to the electorate. The framework provided by my amendments delivers clarity and flexibility. I cannot support amendments 15A or 15B.
Amendment 16 sets out the national exemptions that should be applied to workplace parking levy schemes. Those are: parking places for blue badge holders and equivalent disabled parking badges; qualifying NHS premises; and places at hospices. I will address each of those exemptions in turn.
I am sure that the committee will welcome the exemption for blue badge holders. As well as protecting the rights of disabled people, it also provides an incentive for those with premises liable for the levy to consider making more such parking spaces available.
Committee members will be well aware that the exclusion of hospitals and NHS premises from the workplace parking levy was part of the budget agreement. Amendment 16 delivers that. However, the inclusion of NHS premises in amendment 16 is about more than the budget agreement. It is difficult to imagine a more strategically important and distinctive function than that provided by the NHS on a national level. That is something that resonates with the public.
Of course I am aware that there are other sectors that have national significance, but it is important to be clear that not having a national exemption does not mean that a workplace parking levy scheme would apply in a local situation. There are several steps that will shape that. I apologise if that seems self-evident, but much of the criticism of my amendments—including that implied in the many amendments to amendment 16 that have been lodged—seems to miss that point.
Step 1 is that a local authority will have to decide whether it wishes to set up a scheme—that decision is up to the local authority. Step 2 is that the local authority will set out the scope of the scheme and, as part of that, it will determine local exemptions. That will then be subject to detailed assessment of the people affected and the environment. Step 3 will be consultation. Finally, if a scheme is implemented, the levy will be applied to premises, not people. It would be a matter for the occupiers of the premises to pass on any levy that is applied.
The principle of localism underpins my approach to workplace parking levies. The national strategic importance of the NHS warrants a national exemption, but, otherwise, decisions on how a workplace parking levy scheme would operate, including additional exemptions, are best made at the local level. Such decisions will be part of the wider strategic vision of the needs of an area, underpinned by detailed impact assessments. My view is that national exemptions should be the exception to the rule.
I accept that there is a lot of interest in exemptions. However, the vast bulk of the amendments in the group appear to be a shopping list of additional national exemptions. Some of those are for sectoral groups, while others name individual bodies. I have no doubt that the amendments are sincerely proposed but, taken as a whole, they appear to be intended to weaken the provisions to ensure that a workplace parking levy would never get off the ground. That goes against the principle of localism, underpinned by a strategic approach, which is what amendment 16 delivers.
I would like to say a little more about the definition of “NHS” in amendment 16. For the purposes of the amendment, the NHS is widely defined—it includes general practitioners, for example. That represents the continuum of care that the public expects the NHS to deliver.
Amendment 16 also includes a national exemption for hospices. Some hospices are on NHS premises and some are not. To draw a distinction between different hospices according to where they are located would seem inappropriate, so I have attempted to make it clear that all hospices should be exempt, regardless of their location.
I draw the committee’s attention to subsection (2)(b) of the new section that amendment 16 would introduce, which would allow NHS premises where NHS services are not delivered to be liable for the levy. That would cover, for example, NHS premises that are let to a company that does not directly provide NHS services. I believe that that is right and that the public will agree with that view.
The amendments to amendment 16 would add a range of national exemptions, from exemptions for sectoral groups to exemptions for different sorts of premises and private companies. They would go against the principles of localism that underpin such schemes. Why is there so little trust in local authorities to make decisions locally?
The framework that I have set out would provide the clarity and flexibility that are required to deliver on the ground, which we know that COSLA wants. I ask the committee to support my amendments 15, 16 and 27. I ask members with other amendments in the group not to move them and, if those amendments are moved, I ask the committee to vote against them.
I move amendment 15.
The Convener
Eight members will be given the opportunity to speak to their amendments, after which other committee members will have the opportunity to speak. I will then call the cabinet secretary. After that, I will—unconventionally—suspend the meeting for a five-minute break, because we will then go into a lengthy period of voting. I will push on now.
Colin Smyth
My amendments would add a number of exemptions to the proposed levy. John Finnie contradicted himself again. He said that local government should decide on the exemptions, but he has lodged amendments to create a number of national exemptions. Local democracy seems to exist when the Greens and the SNP decide that it should.
Amendment 15A, in my name, would exempt car parks with 15 spaces or fewer. Amendment 15B, in Jamie Greene’s name, would similarly exempt car parks with a maximum of 20 spaces. Either amendment would be a welcome addition and I am happy to support them as either would set a clear figure that allowed businesses that cover several areas of Scotland to know exactly what rules they had to play by.
Amendment 16C, in my name, would exempt police premises. We have heard—rightly—that NHS premises should be exempt, because the NHS is a national service. The Greens seem to have failed to notice that the police service is now a national service. Police officers and staff have a unique safety need to use private vehicles to get to work and back, so police premises should be exempt from any scheme.
Amendment 16D, in my name, would exempt educational premises, and amendment 16AI would exempt premises that social workers use. The committee received evidence that, for a range of reasons, teachers and social workers require the use of a car to get to and from their places of work.
Amendment 16AJ would exempt premises that shift workers and people who work irregular hours use, as they are less likely to contribute to congestion and more likely to struggle to find public transport, as they work outwith the normal working day.
For the SNP to somehow describe social workers, the police, teachers and shift workers as the elite is an utter disgrace, to be frank.
A significant number of exemptions have been proposed, some of which overlap with mine. All the proposed exemptions would make a valid contribution and I am happy to support them all. However, the volume of legitimate exemptions suggests how flawed the process is.
Those who support the workplace parking levy should have made it the subject of a bill on its own; instead, the proposal is being slipped through at the last minute as an amendment that is part of a murky budget deal. That means that the Parliament cannot scrutinise the proposal properly, which is why I utterly oppose the levy and believe that exemptions should be put in place when we have heard clear evidence in support of them.
I move amendment 15A.
Jamie Greene
I will not add much to what Colin Smyth said. The Labour Party and the Conservatives do not often agree on tax exemptions or on other tax issues—
Richard Lyle
Better together.
Jamie Greene
That is uncalled for, Mr Lyle. You are welcome to intervene if you have a comment to make.
Richard Lyle
I apologise.
Jamie Greene
Thank you for your apology.
The important point, which Mr Rumbles summed up nicely, is that we are creating the law, so the committee has a duty. I am deeply saddened by today’s events, because we are not making good law—the volume of proposed exemptions suggests that.
Let us look at the list of proposed exemptions. I appreciate Mr Finnie’s comment that they are well intended; I am pleased that that has been recognised, because that is the case. There may be other amendments that one could argue were seeking to disrupt the mechanisms of the levy and people are welcome to their views on that, but these are proposed national exemptions.
Where I disagree fundamentally with the approach taken in Mr Finnie’s amendments on the workplace parking levy is that it will be up to local authorities to decide on local exemptions. That means that each city or local authority that introduces a levy as a result of the legislation can decide who pays and who does not. Theoretically, that could lead to teachers in Glasgow being liable for the charge but not those in Edinburgh, or nurses in Aberdeen being liable but not those in Dundee. Where is the fairness in that?
This is not about local democracy; it is about creating bad law. The list of exemptions from the Scottish Conservatives and others—Mr Rumbles and Mr Smyth propose a number of exemptions, too—should be in the bill. They cover the hard-working people and public service workers in Scotland that Parliament and this committee should seek to protect: firefighters, policemen, train drivers, care workers, prison officers and people who do charity work in our high streets. Why on earth are we subjecting them to this tax? We should be ashamed of ourselves. I support all the amendments on exemptions in the group.
Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con)
Having spoken to a number of people who work in our health and social care sector, I have lodged a number of amendments, and I welcome the fact that John Finnie’s amendment 16 exempts hospices. I was looking to lodge such an amendment, because that exemption was not originally included.
The intention behind my amendments is to exempt from the scheme people who work in health and social care. Amendment 16O would exempt employees who work for independent healthcare services, while amendment 16Q covers people working in Scotland’s air ambulance service. I have also sought to exempt adult social care providers through amendments 16R and 16S, while amendments 16T and 16U would exempt
“places at residential care establishments”
and health-based charities across Scotland. Amendment 16P covers employees of veterinary practices.
Finally, amendment 16N would delete the words “subject to subsection (2)(b)” from subsection (1)(b) of the section that amendment 16 seeks to introduce. Subsection (2)(b) stipulates that someone must be a healthcare provider to qualify for exemption at a hospital. That is a key point. Like our Parliament, hospitals require technicians, cleaners and security personnel, to name just a few. They all provide a vital and key role in hospitals and NHS settings, and it is only right that they, too, should be exempt.
The Convener
I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 16A, because I believe that Graham Simpson is in another committee meeting.
Jamie Greene
I am happy to do that. Graham Simpson gave his apologies and asked me to move amendments 16A and 16B. The amendments seek to exempt “industrial lands and heritages” and construction sites from the scheme, based on a number of pieces of consultation that he and our party have held at such sites.
We approached businesses in a number of local authority areas to talk about the prospect of the levy and the effect that it might have on them and their workforce. I appreciate the comment that was made about the levy being on the premises and not the people, but it is inevitable that some businesses will pass the levy on to their employees, as happened in the only other local authority in the country that has implemented such a scheme. They will do that not out of spite for their employees but out of necessity, because they cannot afford the levy that will be imposed on them.
I have spoken to a number of businesses on industrial sites and I will give some examples of their views. It is important, in the midst of the politics and emotion around the proposal, that we listen to local businesses such as Brakes Scotland in Newhouse. It said:
“As a major employer ... based in an out of town location ... with a 24 hour operation, Brakes believe the proposal for a ... Levy would have a negative impact on our employees and people who work under similar circumstances. The lack of public transport ... outside of major conurbations and the ability to provide suitable, safe and regular alternatives to fit with shift patterns ... leaves people no option but to drive to work, and imposing a ... tax on them would be, in our view, unfair and punitive.”
I hope that Mr Lyle will reflect on that. Perhaps he will comment on it—I am happy to take an intervention
Richard Lyle
I think that you are talking about an area in my constituency. It is very nice to know that you have contacted a business in my constituency. As you know, North Lanarkshire Council has never—during the years when I was a councillor there and since then—implemented a car parking charge.
10:15Jamie Greene
I am pleased about that, but you have just voted to give the council the power to do so.
Richard Lyle
But it has never implemented—
Jamie Greene
Mr Lyle, why are you not listening to businesses in your area?
The Convener
In fairness, members, I am happy to allow interventions, but let us not have our proceedings degenerate into a conversation across the table. I do not think that that is how the committee works—it will not work like that.
I invite Jamie Greene to push on. If Mr Lyle wishes to intervene on a specific point in order to question Jamie on something, he may by all means seek to do so.
Jamie Greene
I thank Mr Lyle for expressing his interest in the matter. We have already voted on a number of the amendments, but I plead with him to have a think and to listen to the businesses concerned. What about Sutherland Brothers at the industrial estate at Wick airport? It stated:
“Operating within an industrial estate and with poor public transport, our staff have no alternative but to use their car to commute to work.”
That includes those
“travelling in the early hours of the morning or late evenings to get to and from work.”
Many of the amendments that we and other parties are proposing would exempt certain shift workers and certain locations, and rightly so. I appeal to the hearts of some committee members, who should listen to what the businesses in their own patches are saying and to what we are saying. If members do not agree with me, that is perfectly fine and decent, but if they do not agree—
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
In a moment.
If they do not agree with us politically, that is also perfectly fine and decent in a committee setting. However, please listen to the businesses in your own constituencies and regions. Businesses are not happy, and we are trying to exempt them as a result of the comments that they have made to us.
John Mason
Does the member accept that such decisions are all better made by the local authorities, because they know their areas better? Cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh are more keen on the levy, because the big problem is in the city centres. Many other local authorities, if not all of them, are less keen on a levy, because they do not have city centres.
Jamie Greene
Mr Mason implies that the workplace parking levy will be applied only in cities. Nowhere in Mr Finnie’s amendments is it stated that the levy can be applied only in cities. If Mr Mason wanted to lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 3, I would probably support him, because that would secure rural and suburban areas where there is poor public transport.
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
In a second. Please let me respond to your first intervention.
Mr Mason is making an assumption that, among local authorities, only city councils would wish to introduce a workplace parking levy. We are giving every local authority in Scotland the power to do that, with the result that businesses that are not located in cities might have to pay the levy. We are trying to protect those businesses and those workers.
Colin Smyth
Does the member accept that one of the fundamental flaws is that, although some people argue that the power will be exercised only by cities such as Glasgow or Edinburgh, the reality is that thousands of people from outwith the city boundaries travel into those cities every day for employment, often from areas such as the Borders, which has limited or poor public transport? Those people will be forced to pay the levy, but not a single penny will be spent in their area to support improvements to public transport there.
Secondly, such people will have no say over the matter, because it will be a neighbouring local authority in a city that will decide, despite the fact that they will have to pay.
Jamie Greene
Mr Smyth is absolutely right. We need to reflect on that. If Glasgow City Council introduced a levy—I am sure that Mr Mason would support the council in that—what about workers from Ayrshire or Inverclyde who have to drive to premises—
Richard Lyle
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
Please let me finish.
What about those who have to drive to premises on industrial estates? Cities have industrial estates that are not served by public transport. Cities have people who work evening shifts and early mornings and who have no means of getting to work other than their cars. It is not just people who live in the city whom you are discouraging from taking their cars; you are discouraging people who have no choice, who live in peripheral local authority areas. The actions of a local authority that introduces a levy and the consequences of those actions will be felt by neighbouring local authorities and by people who live outwith the local authority areas concerned.
Richard Lyle
As I said when I posed a question to a councillor from Glasgow, a substantial number of people who travel into Glasgow or Edinburgh to go to work pay car parking charges at the moment. Do you agree?
Jamie Greene
Some employers charge their employees for parking. That is at the discretion of those employers, and they know their workforce. I do not want a blanket approach under which all employers have to charge for parking at their workplace. Therefore, if—
Richard Lyle
I am sorry, but I am talking about people who use National Car Parks facilities or who park at the St Enoch centre or Buchanan Galleries or people who park on the street and pay at a parking meter. I am talking about people who are not charged by their employer; they are being charged by the council.
Jamie Greene
Are you suggesting that they should have to pay a workplace parking levy on top of the private car parking charges?
Richard Lyle
No. I am saying that there are people who already pay to park in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Colin Smyth suggested that thousands of people will pay the charge, but there are people who pay car parking charges at the moment, so that reduces the number.
Jamie Greene
As I said, we are creating national legislation that sets the parameters of the levy. A local authority will be able to mandate all businesses in its area to introduce a levy—there will be no pick and choose here.
To return to local exemptions, if one local authority decides that something is okay but another does not, that will create huge unfairness for our workforce. Mr Simpson’s amendments in the group would exclude certain sites and locations, which is the right thing to do. They are the sites that are the furthest away from our cities, that are the least served by public transport and that tend to have 24-hour operations or shift workers.
John Mason
Does the member at least accept that we probably all agree that no local authority will suggest that there should be a workplace parking levy in a village or out-of-town workplace, and nor will we? Does he accept that we are aiming at the same thing and that the question is whether we take a more centralist approach and decide everything at the centre or allow local authorities to make the decisions?
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the tone in which Mr Mason asked that question and his candour. I appreciate where he is coming from, but there are far too many assumptions in those questions. He says that no rural authority will introduce a levy, but how does he know that? Local authorities are by default political bodies, and they may choose to introduce a levy. That choice should not be available to them, because of the effect that it would have on the workforce.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member take an intervention?
Jamie Greene
This is turning into a lengthy debate. I am trying to be polite, convener, but it is entirely up to you to decide, given the time.
The Convener
It is up to you how many interventions you take, but it might be appropriate if you take one more intervention and then try to wrap up to allow other members to come in.
Jamie Greene
I will not take any more interventions. If other members want to speak to the amendments in the group, they are welcome to do so.
I have made my point. I ask members to reflect on the sensible list of proposed exemptions and give the issue genuine thought. Please do not vote against exempting those workers. It is the right thing to do, so please join us in voting to exempt them.
Mike Rumbles
John Finnie said several times that the levy is on the employer. He is absolutely right about that, and I agree with him. [Interruption.] I see that Mr Finnie is shaking his head—he said that earlier, so maybe that was just an aside. It is a levy on the employer, but there is nothing in the bill to prevent the employer from passing the levy on to employees, so I think that we are dancing on the head of a pin.
Mr Finnie also talked about the principle of localism. I support the principle of localism, but I also support the Parliament doing things right. As members of the committee, our job is to make good law. I am very exercised about that, because that is an important job for us.
We all come here from political backgrounds. I happen to be a Liberal Democrat, but my job here is to ensure that we pass law that is fit for purpose. It is quite obvious to me that, with all the amendments, we are trying to improve the bill. It is a great disappointment that, whatever amendment is proposed, there is an instruction that it will not be allowed.
When the Parliament was set up, it was set up without a revising chamber. I see Stewart Stevenson shaking his head. I was here 20 years ago, Mr Stevenson, at the foundation of this Parliament—
The Convener
Mr Rumbles, I ask you not to have conversations across the table.
Mike Rumbles
I am responding to what Mr Stevenson said.
The Convener
Mr Stevenson made a comment while he was sitting down, without intervening. I suggest that you push on with the point that you were making.
Mike Rumbles
Thank you, convener.
I remember that, when we first took our seats here 20 years ago, there was a big debate about whether we should have had a revising chamber. It was decided that we should not have one because the work of the committees was important and the job of committee members would be to scrutinise legislation, and particularly legislation that was proposed by the Government.
We have a bizarre situation in which, because of a political agreement, the amendment that John Finnie has lodged cannot be touched. This strikes at the very heart of what the Parliament was designed to do. What we are doing is wrong, and I am saying so.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member take an intervention?
Mike Rumbles
I will not. I have not intervened on other people; I have listened to what everybody has said, and I am deeply disappointed by this whole shameful process in our parliamentary system. I appeal to the cabinet secretary to think hard about this and to come back at stage 3 and be prepared to accept reasonable, constructive amendments that have been lodged as part of us doing our jobs.
I turn to my amendments in the group. If we are going to have an exemption for the national health service, it is logical that we look around and ask what other national exemptions we should have. Trying to be constructive, I lodged some amendments to cover, for example, the Police Service of Scotland, which is a national service. I thought that John Finnie would appreciate that, given his work experience.
It is a false idea to say that we can have a national exemption for the national health service but not for anybody else. That is just not logical. Where is the logic in that? It is bad law and we should not agree to it. I am really frustrated and disappointed by the whole process.
The Convener
I call Liam Kerr to speak to amendment 16X and other amendments in the group.
Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)
I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to speak. I lodged several amendments that seek to exempt key groups from the workplace parking levy, for reasons that were well articulated by Colin Smyth. I also strongly associate myself with Jamie Greene’s comments.
In brief, amendments 16X and 16Y would see staff who work at the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland exempted from the scheme. Amendment 16Z covers those who work in the criminal justice social work services that are carried out by local authorities, and amendment 16AA covers those who work on the prison estate. My view is that those are critical services that are required in order to keep the public safe, maintain law and order and promote rehabilitation, and they should be exempted from the scheme.
The Convener
I call Maurice Corry to speak to amendment 16AB and other amendments in the group.
Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendments. Her Majesty’s Coastguard is a critical national safety service and it is on notice to move immediately. Coastguard officers have to be in the field and coastguard ground officers who are in control have to be available. They all need to be available 24 hours a day, and there is a necessity for them to communicate and work with other emergency and blue-light services. Many of those people are in rural areas, and when the balloon goes up at 2 o’clock in the morning, the lifeboat and coastguard people have to get to their stations on time and be available to go forward. Accordingly, I propose that they be exempted from any parking charges.
10:30The Convener
At this point, I should have called Alexander Stewart to speak to amendment 16V, but I believe that Jamie Greene will speak to it instead.
Maurice Corry
I am sorry, convener, but I do not think that I have spoken to my amendment on the lifeboat service.
The Convener
I will come back to you one more time, Mr Corry. [Interruption.] In fact, I will come back to you now.
Maurice Corry
Thank you very much, convener.
Like the coastguard service, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a national service that is critical to the safety of our coasts. After all, we are a maritime nation.
The RNLI is a charity, and there is no way that a charity of such a size will be able to absorb these charges without passing them on to the crew. I am absolutely adamant that our lifeboat crews and the lifeboat base, administration, support and operational staff must be protected. The crews are in communication with other emergency services, and because they need to be on call, with immediate notice to move, it is impossible for them to rely on public transport. They must be able to take their cars to work.
The Convener
We now come to amendment 16V. Normally, Alexander Stewart would have been speaking to this amendment, but I believe that Jamie Greene will do so on his behalf.
Jamie Greene
I will be very brief, convener, because we have already covered a lot of ground.
Amendment 16W, also in the name of Alexander Stewart, seeks to exempt care workers from the charge. I cannot for the life of me understand why we would want care workers, as defined in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, to pay this levy. After all, they work unsocial hours, often for low pay and in difficult circumstances. Therefore, I absolutely support this amendment, which seeks to exempt those workers from the levy; I think that it is the right thing to do, and I hope that other members agree.
Mr Stewart’s other amendment, amendment 16V, relates to those working in Scotland’s airports. As we all know, Scotland relies very heavily on aviation connectivity to service our islands, and I see no reason why an air traffic controller or security worker at an airport in, say, Campbeltown, Barra, Kirkwall or Stornoway should have to pay a levy for carrying out what I consider to be the lifeline duty of servicing our remote and island communities. Again, I appeal to members who have these types of workplaces in their regions or constituencies to think very carefully about voting against exempting them.
The Convener
So far, the only member who has indicated their wish to speak is Stewart Stevenson.
Stewart Stevenson
Clearly there are genuine, deeply held but differing viewpoints on this matter, and that is entirely right and proper. That said, I think that members of this committee should be very careful about attributing to others the reasons that they might have for coming to their decision—in my personal case, on the basis of no knowledge whatever of how I have reached the decisions that I am exercising democratically as we vote on these amendments today.
I did not start off in uncritical support of this proposal. Like others, I have engaged in quite robust debates with a range of people and come to the views that I have come to, and I ask members to respect my individual process and, indeed, the individual process of anyone around this table who might hold views either contrary to my own or the same as mine. I think that it is entirely improper for the process by which we as individuals have come to our viewpoints to be traduced in the way that I have heard.
Turning to more substantial matters, I think it important that we ask ourselves whether local authorities will behave responsibly or irresponsibly in discharging the duties that we are looking to give them under this provision. It is not as if we are asking that question in a vacuum. Such powers have been available to local authorities south of the border for decades now, so we have a model that we can look at to find out whether or not local authorities behave irresponsibly on the matter.
Now, if members of this committee and this Parliament wish to say that Scottish authorities are uniquely irresponsible, compared with their English counterparts, I invite them to do so on the record. I do not happen to believe that to be the case—not because the local authorities are Scottish but because they are the custodians of the interests of local people and they behave in a proper way. It is beyond contemplation that people in Campbeltown are likely to find themselves subject to a levy while people in Cornwall, in England, are not, because their local authority has concluded that it will not introduce a levy. Incidentally, there are no air traffic controllers at Campbeltown and Barra; there are air flight information service officers—
The Convener
You are splitting hairs—
Stewart Stevenson
It is a very substantial hair, for all sorts of interesting reasons.
The bottom line is that we should conduct this debate with proper respect for the individuals who are participating in it. That is my main point. In coming to my views, no one dictates to me; I come to my views honestly. I might be wrong, at the end of the day, as we all can be, but I come to my views honestly and independently, and I ask members to respect that, just as I respect the views of everyone around this table.
John Mason
Hear, hear.
Pauline McNeill
I will briefly address some points in relation to the exchange between Jamie Greene and Richard Lyle. If the proposed approach becomes law, the people of Glasgow are likely to face a workplace parking levy, because the authorities have declared that they will.
Like Mike Rumbles and Stewart Stevenson, I am in favour of localism, but I think that it is the job of this Parliament to set the national policy. We are responsible for the national policy on anti-poverty measures, so if we are doing our job we should be giving serious consideration to exemptions.
I have done some consultation. Tennent Caledonian Breweries is in Duke Street, which is regarded as pretty close to the city centre. There are shift workers and part-time workers there, and they are concerned. There are people who use the bus if they are on the back shift, because they can do that, but who cannot do so if they are on other shifts, because it is not possible to get public transport at certain times of the night.
McVitie’s in Glasgow also has part-time workers and shift workers. Companies are already concerned about the implications of Brexit, and they are concerned about the workplace parking levy. I ask committee members to consider the implications all round—that is, not just the implications for the workforce but the implications for an industry that is very concerned about Brexit.
Edrington, which is a well known and fabulous whisky company in Drumchapel, recruits from all over Glasgow and beyond. The company is concerned for its part-time workers.
Shop stewards in those places have told me that they are concerned about the impact on women workers. In some cases, the workforce is predominantly female, and many workers are single parents and have childcare responsibilities; they need their cars. In most cases, they are low-paid workers. The shop stewards are concerned that even if the costs of the workplace parking levy are not passed on to the workers, in subsequent pay rounds the workers will pay the price of the company having to fork out £400, or whatever the charge is.
Richard Lyle
I agree with Stewart Stevenson. I made comments about the car parking levy well before—months before—it came before this committee. Just because I have listened to the arguments and the evidence and changed my view, I am being attacked. If I had not listened and was voting with the five members who feel that they are not being listened to, I might have been attacked by other members. Sorry, but sometimes politicians have to come off the fence. I have come off the fence on this issue.
Some of the amendments are pure scaremongering. Stewart Stevenson’s comments are correct. I worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland in Glasgow and I paid to park on the street or, alternatively, in a car park. I did not have an individual car parking space, and many companies will not have such spaces for their workers, who will be paying to park on the street or in car parks.
Care workers are out and about visiting the people they look after. I do not see where they park. When I was a councillor, they did not park in the council car park, so they would not get charged. It is pure scaremongering. With the greatest respect to Mike Rumbles and others, I have changed my mind and other members should change theirs.
The Convener
We have had two suggestions from members that others are making up their minds because they are being told what to do, and they have been criticised for making those comments. It is wrong, in my opinion, for committee members to then criticise other people for the position that they are taking. We are all entitled to our opinions, and members should respect that.
Before I bring in the cabinet secretary, I again take off my convener’s hat to make an interesting observation. When councils are under increased financial pressure, they look at all ways and opportunities to raise revenue across their portfolio. I saw an example of that when fees were raised on car parks in the Highland area. My fear is that, although councils may currently say that they do not want to raise workplace parking levies, they may be forced into doing so as their financial position becomes tougher, and people may be swept up in that.
In addition, there has been no investigation of the financial case for the proposal. I know of some firms that pay for their employees to park in public car parking spaces because they do not have the ability to provide them with parking spaces. People have contacted me about the issue. Should the levy come in, it might fall to those employees to pay for their parking charges because the company believes that everyone else is paying for parking.
I call on the cabinet secretary to speak. As soon as he has finished speaking, we are going to pause. Cabinet secretary—until the pause, the time is yours.
Michael Matheson
The amendments in John Finnie’s name strike a balance between the national and local dimensions. We have a national framework that allows national exemptions to be applied but, as John Finnie said in speaking to his amendments, national exemptions should be the exception, and I agree.
I believe that our role is to set the framework and to let those who take forward a scheme implement it on the ground. That is why I cannot support amendments 15A and 15B, which seek to exempt from charges under licensing schemes any premises with, respectively, 15 or fewer or fewer than 20 workplace parking spaces. Those numbers are arbitrary, with no reference to the circumstances that a local authority might be trying to address.
Amendment 15 has the balance right and would allow local authority schemes to exempt premises with less than a maximum number of parking spaces, as the scheme in Nottingham does. I am therefore happy to support amendment 15. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I would encourage the committee to support it. I invite Colin Smyth and Jamie Greene not to move amendments 15A and 15B respectively. If they are moved, I ask the committee to reject them.
Amendment 16 has attracted a lot of attention, not least given the number of amendments to it that have been lodged. I will return to those amendments and the range of matters that they intend to address. I fully support the exemptions that are set out in amendment 16. The exemption of hospitals and NHS premises was a condition of our support for the workplace parking licensing scheme amendments. John Finnie made a clear case for exemptions for NHS premises, and I am happy to support that approach.
I also see the merit in including hospices and blue badges in the limited range of national exemptions on similar grounds. I agree with John Finnie that national exemptions should be the exception. I also agree with the principles of localism and believe that significant local decisions are best made locally. That will mean that they are informed by local circumstances, needs and opinions. Amendment 16 has got the balance right, and I am happy to support the amendment. If it is pressed to a vote, I invite the committee to support it.
10:45Jamie Greene
Why did the Government come to the view that only the NHS should get an exemption and not other public service workers in similar circumstances? Why does the cabinet secretary not think that, if you give the power to create local exemptions to local authorities only, it will create a disparity between local authorities that will mean that some workers have to pay in one area while others in other areas will not have to pay? How is it fair when a teaching assistant in Dundee does not pay while one in Glasgow does?
Michael Matheson
The purpose is to give local authorities the discretion to tailor schemes that reflect their local circumstances, and the amendments that we support provide them with the flexibility to determine what they see as being local need.
It should be borne in mind that local authorities have to undertake a significant level of engagement prior to establishing such a scheme to make sure that they consult a range of different stakeholders that will allow them to consider issues that arise during the process. A robust duty is placed on local authorities to consider the issues and, ultimately, it is for local elected members to come to a decision.
Our decision to support the NHS is driven by the fact that it is a national service and there are specific issues around the number of parking spaces that are often required at hospitals for those who work there and those who access the hospital itself. On that basis, we agreed that there should be a principle of NHS facilities being a national exemption.
The remaining 37 amendments in the group all seek to exempt a sectoral group, specified premises, or a company. When reading the amendments, I was struck to note how little they reflect the evidence that the committee heard in advance of stage 2. Not unreasonably, we looked to Nottingham’s experience of running a workplace parking levy scheme. Chris Carter from Nottingham City Council told the committee:
“The beauty of the workplace parking levy is that it is flexible and allows different exemptions to meet needs. However, another strength of the levy is its simplicity. If too many exemptions are introduced, it becomes too complicated and a lot of the benefits are lost.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 22 May 2019; c 13.]
We have 37 amendments, each of which seeks to add further nationally mandated exemptions. If you do not mind me saying so, convener, one could be left thinking that some members do not want the scheme to work because of the range of exemptions that they are seeking to put in place. I understand that there are concerns about how a workplace parking licensing scheme will be applied—[Interruption.]
The Convener
Mr Greene, if you want to ask to make an intervention, please do, but it is not fair to talk over someone when they are talking.
Michael Matheson
The place to address those concerns is at the local level, except in specific cases. I am concerned that the amendments that seek to bring in additional national exemptions will have the effect of undermining local decision making and will make schemes unworkable and ineffective. As a result, I cannot support those amendments, and I invite members not to move them. If they are moved, I invite the committee to reject them.
The Convener
Thank you, cabinet secretary. As the cabinet secretary has just said, we are about to go into a series of votes. Before we do that, I will suspend the meeting for 10 minutes.
10:49 Meeting suspended.11:00 On resuming—
The Convener
I reconvene the meeting. The cabinet secretary had just summed up, so I now ask John Finnie to wind up on amendment 15.
John Finnie
There has been a lot of discussion, so I will leave it there.
The Convener
I ask Colin Smyth to press or seek to withdraw amendment 15A.
Colin Smyth
I will press amendment 15A.
The Convener
I remind members that, if amendment 15A is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 15B, due to pre-emption.
The question is, that amendment 15A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15A disagreed to.
Amendment 15B moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 15B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 15B disagreed to.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 16N moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16N be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 16N disagreed to.
Amendment 16A moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16A disagreed to.
Amendment 16B not moved.
Amendment 16C moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16C be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16C disagreed to.
The Convener
I call amendment 16E, which is in the name of Mike Rumbles.
Mike Rumbles
I want to bring this issue back at stage 3, when it might get a fairer hearing, so I will not move amendment 16E.
Amendment 16E not moved.
Amendment 16X moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16X be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16X disagreed to.
Amendment 16Y moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16Y be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16Y disagreed to.
Amendment 16AB moved—[Maurice Corry].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AB be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AB disagreed to.
Amendment 16AC moved—[Maurice Corry].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AC be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AC disagreed to.
Amendment 16D moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16D be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16D disagreed to.
The Convener
I call amendment 16L in the name of Mike Rumbles, which was debated with amendment 16.
Mike Rumbles
As I am always an optimist and in hope of a fairer hearing at stage 3, I will not move amendment 16L.
The Convener
It would be helpful if members could simply move or not move their amendments. I have 14 pages to get through before the next bit, and it would make it easier if we could keep the votes flowing.
Amendments 16L, 16F and 16G not moved.
Amendment 16V moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16V be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16V disagreed to.
Amendments 16H, 16I, 16J and 16K not moved.
Amendment 16O moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16O be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16O disagreed to.
Amendment 16P moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16P be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16P disagreed to.
Amendment 16Q moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16Q be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16Q disagreed to.
Amendment 16R moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16R be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16R disagreed to.
Amendment 16S moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16S be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16S disagreed to.
Amendment 16T moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16T be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16T disagreed to.
Amendment 16U moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16U be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16U disagreed to.
Amendment 16W moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16W be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16W disagreed to.
Amendment 16Z moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16Z be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16Z disagreed to.
Amendment 16AA moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AA be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AA disagreed to.
Amendment 16AD not moved.
Amendment 16AE moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AE be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AE disagreed to.
Amendment 16AF moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AF be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AF disagreed to.
Amendment 16AG not moved.
11:15Amendment 16AI moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AI be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AI disagreed to.
Amendment 16AJ moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AJ be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AJ disagreed to.
Amendments 16AK and 16M not moved.
The Convener
I call amendment 16AH, in the name of Miles Briggs.
Miles Briggs
Convener, I intend to bring this amendment back at stage 3, as it would exempt the lowest-paid workers in our NHS, but I want to move it today, too.
Amendment 16AH moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AH be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AH disagreed to.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on workplace parking: financial provisions. Amendment 17, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 17C, 17A, 17D to 17R, 17T to 17V, 17B, 17S, 18, 18A and 19.
John Finnie
Amendment 17 outlines how charges arising from the workplace parking licence will operate. The first—and key—point to make is that it is a charge on the occupier of the premises, not on individuals parking at their workplace. How—and, indeed, whether—the levy is recovered from those parking at their workplace is a matter between employers and employees.
I want to specifically address the power in proposed subsection (1)(b) in amendment 17, as it is key to the other amendments in the group. It is important to make it clear that the power for Scottish ministers to specify other persons who may be liable is to allow for circumstances in which someone other than the occupier of the premises should be liable to pay charges for the provision of workplace parking. It would, for example, allow parking spaces at an occupier’s premises to be leased to another organisation for use by its employees. Although the person providing these places to employees would not be the occupier of the premises at which the spaces are allocated, they would have to hold a licence for those spaces. Regulations made under proposed subsection (1)(b) could ensure that that person also paid charges.
The amendment absolutely does not mean that the charge could be levied on individual employees, given that it is restricted to the recovery of charges imposed under licensing schemes. Under amendment 7, licensing schemes may impose charges only on people providing workplace parking, not on those who use it. That is a crucial distinction. Schemes cannot regulate whether or how a provider who is required to hold a licence may choose to recover charges in respect of a licence from anybody else.
Therefore, the majority of the amendments in this group appear to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of proposed subsection (1)(b).
The practical effect of the amendments would not be to provide exemption to employees or to prevent charges being recovered in any particular circumstances by employers or anybody else who was liable to pay them. However, the amendments could prevent charges imposed by schemes being recovered from people who provide workplace parking, which is surely not the intention. There could be the absurd position under amendment 17F, for example, that a provider of workplace parking could not be made liable for licence charges because they had children under 12. That cannot be right.
Amendment 17 also allows for local authorities setting up a scheme to have some flexibility in how it is applied, permitting different charges or no charge to be applied in respect of different days, times, persons, premises and vehicles. That would be a very useful tool for local authorities, as they could tailor their scheme to reflect local circumstances and use the scheme to promote other policies. The power to specify different classes of motor vehicles could, for example, support the promotion of ultra-low-emission vehicles, which addresses the issue that is covered in amendment 17R, again allowing the local authority to take the lead on what is best for its local area.
It is not clear whether amendments 17T and 17U are intended to ensure that no charges are imposed at weekends or between the hours of midnight and 6 am. In any event, the power would already permit local authorities to impose lower or no charges on whichever days and at whatever times they wish, again empowering them with local discretion.
Amendment 17S would require employers seeking to recover charges from employees to put in place a plan to means test those charges. My amendments will deliver a scheme that is a charge on people who provide workplace parking, not people who use it. The reason for that is that occupiers of premises provide workplace parking and it is right that they focus on the impact and result of that parking.
My amendments are silent on how employers recover the charge from employees, if they do so at all. It is a matter for employers whether they recover the charge and evidence from Nottingham is that not all employers do so. Employers may also decide how to recover charges from employees and how much to recover. The committee heard evidence from Nottingham City Council that employers who are subject to its scheme can and do vary the charge that is recovered, depending on factors such as the salary of the employee and the location in the scheme area of their place of employment.
Jamie Greene
Do you expect that the Government would set a national charge via regulation, as was discussed with regard to pavement parking and low-emission zones, and that if companies passed on the charge, they could subsidise it by making up the difference between what it was liable to pay and what it charged the employee? Is that how the scheme would work?
John Finnie
I am not sure that I absolutely understand the point, but no, that would not be the intention.
Seeking to regulate those nuanced matters at a national level would be extremely challenging and might give rise to a greater risk of unfairness than leaving the issue to the discretion and judgment of employers would.
Amendment 17S would require that employers had a plan for means testing employees. What should that cover? Should it cover income, outgoings, dependents and debts? As well as being extremely bureaucratic, it would be extraordinarily intrusive. What if an employee did not want to share details of their private life with their employer? Why should they be compelled to do so?
Amendment 18 underpins a key element of my approach to workplace parking levies. Funds raised by the workplace parking licensing scheme could be used for two purposes: the administrative costs of the scheme, and activities to help deliver the local transport strategy. It is not a simple revenue-raising power, as some critics suggested.
When a local authority is considering a scheme, it will require a local transport strategy, which is not something that a local authority is required to have. However, where a local authority has a strategy, that will be where activities that the workplace parking levy can fund are set out. Where better for that than in a strategy that is aimed at addressing local transport needs? That should go some way to providing reassurance on the purpose and outcomes of a WPL. It builds on the transparent and locally focused approach that I have adopted in my amendments.
Amendment 18 will allow for joint working by local authorities when that would benefit the area that is committing funds. That reflects the fact that transport issues are often framed by travel-to-work areas, rather than by local authority boundaries.
Amendment 18A would require a local authority that operated a scheme to make a financial transfer to another local authority where a workplace parking licence charge was levied, that charge was passed on to an employee and that employee lived in another local authority area. The principle that underpins the amendment appears to be that it is unfair that people who live outwith a local authority area should pay towards transport improvements in that area, but is that really unfair? It could equally be argued that it is unfair that people from outwith an area who use transport, including local roads, in an area do not contribute to that.
There are other issues with amendment 18A, aside from the bureaucracy that it would involve. Funds that are raised through charges will be hypothecated into activities that are set out in the local transport strategy of an authority that introduces the levy. The receiving local authority might not have a local transport strategy; in any event, it would not be required to utilise the funds that it received to improve transport services. It could apply those funds in any way that it saw fit.
Fundamentally, the workplace parking levy is all about the fact that we are facing a climate emergency. We need as many tools available as possible to address that. It is disingenuous to claim that people who commute into a neighbouring local authority area do not contribute to problems for that authority and do not benefit from transport expenditure by that authority.
Amendment 19 seeks to give the Scottish ministers largely technical powers in relation to accounts for workplace parking licensing schemes. Its provisions are similar to existing provisions in part 1 of the bill on LEZs and in part 4 on parking prohibitions. The amendment will allow for transparency in the keeping of accounts by local authorities, which I would expect to be uncontroversial.
I move amendment 17.
Pauline McNeill
Amendment 17C has been drafted to stop companies passing the charge on to workers. I have already spoken about aspects of that intention. One of the issues is to do with the funds that the levy will raise. In Nottingham, which is not dissimilar in size to Glasgow, the levy raises £9 million a year. At that rate, if the levy were introduced in Glasgow, it would take a decade before the funds would build up to a significant sum. Following the Glasgow connectivity commission’s report, more than £1 billion has been asked for for Glasgow. The workplace parking levy will not raise enough funds to change the face of public transport, but it will cause a great deal of misery for workers.
I apologise to John Finnie if I am confused about this, but it is my understanding that the money that will be raised will not be ring fenced. Glasgow City Council, in particular, is under a great deal of financial pressure. It would be understandable if it were to spend the money on things other than public transport. I would have more respect for the policy if the money that was raised from it were ring fenced for public transport. Without the funds that are brought in being ring fenced for that purpose, the arguments for the workplace parking levy do not make a great deal of sense.
In its helpful evidence to the committee, Sustrans agreed that there should be discounts for low-paid workers and seemed to acknowledge that poverty proofing should form part of such a policy.
Amendments 17A and 17B seek to provide an exemption from the levy for people who earn less than the living wage, which is currently £9 an hour. The intention is to protect low-paid workers. Nearly half a million people in Scotland—the figure is 470,000, to be exact—do not earn the real living wage. In the worst-case scenario, low-paid employees might be forced to look elsewhere for work—[Interruption.] That is a legitimate argument, Mr Lyle.
Richard Lyle
Will the member take an intervention?
Pauline McNeill
In a minute.
Amendment 17D seeks to provide an exemption for single-parent families. At stage 3 of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill, the Parliament agreed to insert a provision that asked the Government to address measures in relation to child poverty. Single parents are a specified group in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017. According to the 2001 Scottish census, there are 170,000 single parents in Scotland, who have more than 281,000 dependent children. Glasgow has the highest rate of lone-parent families, who face many barriers to finding and sustaining employment.
Richard Lyle
I am interested to know where Pauline McNeill gets her information from when it comes to how many people this would affect.
Pauline McNeill
When you say “this”, what do you mean?
Richard Lyle
I mean any charge that is imposed. How many people in Glasgow would it affect who take the bus into Glasgow?
Pauline McNeill
Are you asking how many people take the bus?
Richard Lyle
No—how many people would end up paying a parking levy who do not pay parking charges?
Pauline McNeill
Thousands of people could be—
The Convener
I will remind members about the etiquette of this process. It is not a member-to-member conversation. If you would like to make an intervention, Mr Lyle, please make it through the chair and I am sure that Pauline McNeill will then answer it.
11:30Pauline McNeill
In answer to Mr Lyle, tens of thousands of workers could be affected. It would then be a matter for the local authority. However, the local authority in Glasgow has already decided that it will use the levy and thousands of workers there could be affected by it.
Transport Scotland’s own figures show that car usage among low-income households is relatively high so the suggestion that all low-paid workers get the bus is a misunderstanding of the profile of the city.
I lodged amendment 17E because there is already an employment gap between disabled people and the rest of the working-age population. I think that I am right in saying that disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed. I know that there has been discussion about users of the blue badge scheme possibly being exempt, but we need to discuss who would be exempt. There is certainly an issue to do with disabled workers who currently use a car. We need to make sure that further burdens are not added to their daily lives.
Amendment 17F would provide an exemption for parents of children under 12—those of primary school age or under. Many parents—many women in particular—need to use their cars to do the school run before work and I do not believe that this proposal has been equality proofed before stage 2. Many primary school children are taken to school by car or van—more than in secondary school. In Scotland, 29 per cent of primary pupils go to school by car or van compared to only 18 per cent of secondary pupils. Many parents use that form of transport. Often, primary pupils do not use public transport because they are too young to travel alone, so it is a significant issue for parents.
I move amendment 17C.
The Convener
I would have called Miles Briggs to speak on his amendment 17G at this point, but he has left. Jamie Greene will speak on his behalf.
Jamie Greene
According to protocol, I will speak only on Miles Briggs’s amendment and will keep my other comments until after other members have had the opportunity to speak about the other amendments.
The premise of Miles Briggs’s amendment 17G is to exempt from being liable for charges people who volunteer at establishments that provide adult healthcare, at establishments that provide adult social care and at hospices, where a hospice is defined as somewhere that is
“used for the purpose of caring for the dying or incurably ill”.
I appreciate that we have had a long and robust political debate, but I would like to think that anyone who gives up their time to volunteer in such places should, at the very least, get some exemption from the charges. These people are not paid, for goodness’ sake. I declare an interest in that members of my family provide voluntary services at such places and do great work, as I am sure all volunteers do. Please can we at least find some agreement that it is our moral duty to give volunteers an exemption? That is the premise of Miles Briggs’s amendment.
Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Jamie Greene
Yes, I will, but I ask that other members let me finish after that.
Gail Ross
Amendment 16 proposed that hospices should be exempt, under subsection (1)(c) of the section that will be inserted by amendment 16. We have agreed to amendment 16, so we have already voted for parking places at hospices to be exempt from charges.
Jamie Greene
That is very helpful, thank you. I support that. However, Miles Briggs wishes to add to that exemption people who volunteer in the other healthcare environments that I mentioned. Anybody who has ever been to hospital and used a—
The Convener
Excuse me, Mr Greene—I say to Mr Finnie that, if he wants to disagree, he needs to ask to intervene rather than just make comments.
Jamie Greene
It is welcome that the Government agrees that people who work at hospices should be exempt. I presume that that will include those who volunteer there. However, the addition of these other healthcare premises could exempt people who provide services at the shops and cafes that many hospitals in Scotland have. Those people are volunteers. I can check the names of some of the organisations, but we are all aware of them—we all come across them when we visit hospitals.
Michael Matheson
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
Please let me finish my point. Those people, who might even work full time but are still unpaid, might be required to drive to those locations, especially in hard-to-reach areas. That is the premise of Mr Briggs’s amendment 17G.
I am happy to give way to the cabinet secretary, if he has any further comments to make.
Michael Matheson
I do not know whether the member is unclear about how the levy will be applied, but I would point out that it is based on the premises. If volunteers at hospices are exempt from the levy, that is not because they themselves are exempt, but because the premises are exempt. If the local authority decides that a particular facility is to be exempt, it will be exempt. It is a levy on premises, not individuals.
Jamie Greene
But these places are not exempt—you have voted not to make them exempt. It is a ridiculous argument. You and the members of your party had the opportunity to exempt these types of places—
Michael Matheson
It is a levy on premises, not individuals—
Jamie Greene
If you want to intervene, please do so. Do not shout at me across the room.
Michael Matheson
You are getting it fundamentally wrong.
Jamie Greene
Please let me make the point—
The Convener
Hold on. I have said this before, and I am not going to keep repeating myself: the committee is not having a conversation; we are trying to get through legislation. If you want to have a conversation across the room, please do it through the chair or ask the member who is speaking whether they wish to take an intervention. I do not think that it is helpful for people to shout at each other across the room; indeed, if it was allowed to continue, it could lead to anarchy, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary would not want that.
Jamie Greene
Let me continue on what I think is quite a serious matter.
The cabinet secretary is right: if a place is exempt, a person—whether they be paid or otherwise—will, by default, be exempt, too. However, the committee has chosen not to exempt these premises, and amendment 17G seeks, as a back-up, to exempt those who volunteer at them. I implore members to think carefully about these people, whom we meet and interact with as MSPs when we go to these establishments. If those volunteers are not exempt, because the local authority has chosen not to exempt them, we should at the very least give them this opportunity to be exempt.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
I am just finishing my comments. The member will have an opportunity to speak to the amendments, if he so wishes.
We can at least exempt the types of people who volunteer at these organisations and set that as a national standard. It is the right thing to do, and I implore members to support the amendment.
The Convener
Thank you. I call Michelle Ballantyne to speak to amendment 17H and any other amendments in the group.
Michelle Ballantyne (South Scotland) (Con)
I will try to keep my comments relatively brief, convener. I thank the committee for allowing me to speak this morning. Before I go on, I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
The amendments in my name seek to secure exemptions from the scheme for individuals who receive benefit payments. Amendment 17H seeks to secure an exemption for those receiving short-term assistance, while amendments 17I to 17K seek to exempt individuals who are in receipt of universal credit, jobseekers allowance or employment or support allowance. Furthermore, amendments 17L to 17N seek to exempt individuals who are in receipt of disability living allowance, personal independence payments or carers allowance.
I have lodged the amendments because I believe that those who receive benefits are already at the lower end of the earnings scale and are actively trying to get back into the workplace and gradually increase their working hours. The amendments seek to do two things. First, a national exemption would ensure consistency for people who are in receipt of benefits and would allow them to be confident that, when they go into the workplace, they will not end up having to pay for parking there.
Secondly, I have listened to the arguments very carefully this morning and, if it is being suggested that businesses should pick up the tab for workplace parking, the amendments might actively encourage them to employ people who might otherwise find it difficult to get into the employment market—particularly those with disabilities, who struggle to find employment. These exemptions might give businesses an extra incentive to employ them.
I believe that there is a cross-boundary risk, in particular, attached to the proposed levy. Most of the people in the category that we are talking about cannot afford to live in the cities—indeed, they are often pushed to their edges or outside them—but those who seek employment within the city boundary could well be caught by the levy.
My final point is that businesses already pay rates on their parking spaces, because those are part of the rateable value of an organisation’s premises, so we would be double-charging businesses by introducing the levy. That might be fine for a highly profitable service-led industry, but in manufacturing, for example, where margins are much tighter, it will pose considerable problems. It is important that John Finnie considers national exemptions in some areas, this being one of them. Although I am pleased that he has welcomed exemptions in relation to the NHS, I think that many people on benefits will question why highly paid NHS staff are entitled to a national exemption while they, who are on the minimum wage or struggling to get back into work and provide for their families, do not receive the same exemption. I hope that Mr Finnie will consider that.
John Mason
Does the member understand that we are talking about places, not people, being taxed? The provisions do not differentiate between higher and lower-paid employees. The situation that she refers to would come into effect only if an employer passed on the charge in some way—for example, by cutting a person’s pay.
Michelle Ballantyne
I referred to that in my comments. If an employer is not prohibited from passing on the levy—
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Michelle Ballantyne
Hang on—let me finish. My understanding of the provisions is that they would not prohibit an employer from passing on the levy, so that may well happen. If an employer did not pass on the levy as a direct charge to the employee, in a business with low margins that would inevitably affect the rates that it could pay. By default, an unintended consequence of the provisions is that they would affect the earnings of the lowest paid.
I understand exactly what John Finnie is trying to do here. I understand that the levy would be imposed as a place charge and not an individual charge. However, I say to all of you that, when you make law, it always has unintended consequences, and I do not believe that you have considered those unintended consequences in their entirety or that you have shown adequate understanding of how business operates and the impact that the levy would have on businesses, which are already paying for their parking.
John Mason
If, theoretically, the levy was reflected in a lower pay increase next year, there is no way that this Parliament could intervene or be involved in that unless an employee’s pay went below the minimum wage.
Michelle Ballantyne
That is the whole point, is it not? Governments’ actions have an effect in the real world. The bill and the committee’s decisions will have consequences in the real world. It is incumbent on all of us, when we consider the amendments that come before us, to consider the potential consequences of the decisions that we make.
I have listened really carefully to a lot of the debate this morning. Some of it has made good sense and some of it has shown a huge degree of naivety about the real world. The people who suffer the most when we make such laws are always the people on the lowest incomes. How can you sit here and tell me that it is imperative that there is a national exemption for NHS employees, based on their contribution to society and the need for what they do, but that there is no need to protect those who are on the lowest incomes or encourage businesses to provide opportunities for them? I think that you are really missing the point.
Richard Lyle
I get your concern, but were you as concerned when your party brought in the bedroom tax and people had to pay that?
The Convener
Whoa! Mr Lyle—
Richard Lyle
It is a fair comment.
Jamie Greene
That is not what we are debating.
The Convener
Hold on, everyone. We are looking at the workplace parking levy. I do not think that comments such as Mr Lyle’s are helpful.
Richard Lyle
I know that you do not.
The Convener
Mr Lyle, with the greatest respect, I think that, as convener of the committee, I show remarkable impartiality and do not pass comment. I ask you to respect me and to treat me in the same way as you would the Presiding Officer, which means that you do not answer back when I am speaking. To do so is rude and shows disrespect to the parliamentary system.
11:45Maurice Corry
Before I speak to amendment 17O, I declare that I am an armed forces veteran.
Amendment 17O covers all uniformed and serving personnel, regular reservists, cadets and civilian instructors who serve in our military units and our military bases and training areas in Scotland, which are Crown property. They are there operationally, and many personnel have to be available 24 hours a day. In some cases, they are told to move at short notice. Therefore, they require their vehicles to attend to their duties at all hours and where public transport is not available or is limited, particularly in rural and out-of-town areas.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 17P would exempt low earners, as defined by the Scottish ministers in regulations. As it stands, the regressive levy would hit the worst-off hardest. Amendment 17P seeks to address that if employers pass the levy on to employees—let us be clear: the levy can and will be passed on by many employers. Indeed, when giving evidence to the committee, the SNP spokesperson for transport on Glasgow City Council argued that the levy will work only if it is passed on to workers. Councillor Richardson said:
“Passing the levy on is one of the tools to enable behaviour change. What is being passed on in the levy is the disincentive to drive”.—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 22 May 2019; c 50.]
Let us be clear: if the levy is brought in by the SNP in Glasgow, it will be passed on to drivers.
Amendment 17Q seeks to exempt those without access to public transport, because it is unfair to penalise those with no other option than to use their car to get to work.
Amendment 17R would exempt those who drive ultra-low-emission vehicles. If the purpose of the scheme is to reduce emissions, I cannot see why a person driving an ultra-low-emission vehicle should have to pay the charge, particularly as they have already gone to the additional expense of purchasing such a vehicle in order to do the right thing and reduce emissions. Failure to support amendment 17R would show that the levy has nothing to do with the environment and is simply a budget decision designed by the Greens and the SNP to provide a fig leaf—
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Colin Smyth
If you let me finish my sentence, I might.
The provision was designed to be a fig leaf to cover up their budget decision to cut the funding of local councils.
John Mason
Do you accept that congestion is a problem in the city and that, even if we filled the city centres with electric cars, we would still have a problem?
Colin Smyth
If Mr Mason is saying that he is opposed to electric vehicles being one of the solutions to emissions, we have a challenge on our hands when it comes to the environment.
Amendment 17S calls on employers to introduce a scheme—such as the one that was described to the committee by Nottingham City Council—whereby the amount that is paid by their employees varies according to income. That would ensure greater fairness should the levy be introduced. Taxes should be progressive, but the levy is regressive.
Amendment 18A seeks to ensure that, when the cost of the levy is met by an employee, the money that is raised goes to the local authority in which they are resident. It is unfair that people living outside cities without good transport links should have to pay the levy because of a lack of public transport in their area and not have the proceeds of the levy spent on improving the poor public transport that led to their using a car in the first place. I have raised that issue in the committee on numerous occasions. The cabinet secretary said that the committee is not listening to the evidence, but the reality is that it is the cabinet secretary who is failing to listen to the evidence.
There needs to be a solution to that particular issue. The south east of Scotland transport partnership—SEStran—provided a solution when it gave evidence to the committee and strongly argued that the levy should be applied strategically so that it deals with that anomaly. I again give the example of someone from the Borders who works in Edinburgh having no choice but to pay the levy for using their car because there is no public transport, yet no money that is raised in Edinburgh will go to improving public transport in the Borders.
The way in which to deal with the issue is to allow the levy to be applied more strategically. I appreciate that that would mean looking at transport more strategically, which the Government does not do often enough, but I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to the evidence that has been given to the committee and take a more strategic approach to the proposal.
Tom Mason (North East Scotland) (Con)
First, I draw the committee’s attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, particularly to the fact that I am a councillor on Aberdeen City Council and I am an exception to the people who are around the table as, arguably, I will be one of the ones who has to deal with the legislation when it is passed. No doubt, local government will be pressurised into using the legislation to supplement the funds that it receives from central Government because it has been short-changed this year by at least £26 million.
I associate myself with Colin Smyth’s words about the lack of strategic thought in the bill as a whole. If there is a problem with congestion, we should resolve the congestion. Parked cars do not cause any congestion at all, so why put the levy on parking when it should be on road use if it is to solve the congestion problem?
Taxing electric cars also does not strike me as making any sense whatsoever.
Amendment 17T simply seeks to define a normal working week. In other words, it is not 24 hours a day; it is five days a week and only during the day.
Amendment 17V seeks to exempt government institutions. What is the point of charging a levy in any way on such institutions? It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is not particularly sensible; any government workplace should be exempt.
However, if you do that, you will have problems with pork barrel politics in local government, which determines exactly what is going on, and could cause disharmony in local government.
The Convener
Jamie Greene is next, and then two more members wish to speak. I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 17U and other amendments not already covered.
Jamie Greene
Does that mean that I can also speak to the other amendments and that no other members are queueing to move their amendments? Is that correct?
The Convener
No. You speak to amendment 17U. I have got you down to speak after Mike Rumbles, who will come in first.
Jamie Greene
That is what I wanted to clarify, convener.
I am happy to speak to amendment 17U, in the name of Dean Lockhart, which seeks to exclude people who work unsociable hours when public transport is simply not available, not just scarce, between the hours of midnight and 6 am, which should encompass many shift workers who simply have to drive to get to their place of work.
The amendment is sensible. In many parts of Scotland, it is not an option for someone to get a bus to their place of work at 11.30 at night. If we are to introduce the provisions as proposed, we should acknowledge that many people have to take their cars to work because they work unsociable hours. We should place importance on shift workers. Those people should be exempt. Amendment 17U seeks to do that, and I hope that it will get the committee’s support.
Mike Rumbles
I have tried to lodge amendments to the bill that I think are constructive and will help to improve it.
John Finnie’s amendments 17, 18 and 19 will improve the bill. I opposed his earlier amendments, but if we have to have them, I will vote for amendments 17, 18 and 19 because they will make sure that the income from the charges goes directly to the area that should benefit from it. They also make it clear that it is the occupier of the premises who will be charged. I will support those amendments.
Some strange comments have been made about this issue. The whole point of John Finnie’s series of amendments—the whole point of the workplace parking levy—is to make people use their cars less. If we are going to make people use their cars less, the levy will have to be passed on to the drivers, otherwise there is no point. What would be the point if the charges are not passed on?
I accept that. If we go down this route, the charge has to be passed on, and that is the problem. I would be in favour of this approach if we did not put the cart before the horse. If we had areas in which there was a decent public transport system, that could encourage people to move from their cars to public transport. If we had such a system in place, the proposal would be more logical, but it is not logical to put the cart before the horse.
I will vote against all the other amendments in the group, because they would not improve the bill. They are focused on the occupier of the premises. I know that they are well intentioned, but there is an issue. I highlight Pauline McNeill’s amendments as an example. I do not see how we can, in legislation, prevent a charge from being passed on in one form or another. After all, is that not the purpose of the exercise? I do not understand the amendments. Amendment 17A states:
“Regulations under subsection (1)(b) must provide that a person who earns less than the living wage is exempt from being specified as being liable for charges.”
Again, I point out that it is the premises, not the individual, that is liable for the charge. By the way, very high earners might not necessarily be earning—they might take their money in dividends.
Pauline McNeill
I lodged those amendments because, during the evidence sessions, some members said that the charges do not need to be passed on. It has been a little bit confusing. I agree with Mike Rumbles that the policy intention is to pass the charge on. I lodged my amendments to test the argument and ask what it is that we are trying to do. At the very least, we need to be clear about what the policy intention is. Members are saying that the charge does not need to be passed on—I think that John Mason said that, but I could be wrong, so I apologise if he did not. If that is the case, what would be the problem in removing the possibility that companies could pass the charge on to workers? Why do we not just put that in the legislation?
Mike Rumbles
I understand where you are coming from. From what you are saying, it sounds to me that you will not press your amendments, and in that case there will not be a vote on them. I will give you an example. Amendment 17D states:
“regulations ... may not apply to a person who is the parent of a child living in a single-parent household”.
A single person could be a very wealthy business owner, so why put that in an amendment? I do not quite understand the point that is being made there.
I reiterate that the amendments are well intentioned, but they miss the point of the bill. As I see it, the whole point of amendment 17—I will be happy to take an intervention from John Finnie if I have got this wrong—is to change behaviour and move people away from driving their cars and on to public transport. My problem with that approach has always been that, if we do not have the public transport in place, how can we change behaviour effectively?
John Mason
Mike Rumbles raises a number of points. Would he at least accept that, in the city centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh, we have pretty good public transport, and people can generally get around without using their cars? Secondly, would he accept that an employer has various options? One is to pass the charge on; another is to reduce the number of parking spaces so that there are fewer cars and less congestion; and a third option is for the company, if it is profitable, to absorb the costs itself.
Mike Rumbles
I thank the member for that intervention. My whole point earlier, and the point of the amendments that I lodged—which I thought were constructive—was the very point that John Mason makes. If the City of Edinburgh Council was convinced that it had a decent public transport service, it could implement the charge. My amendment was designed to ensure that a charge would not be implemented in an area that did not have a decent public transport service, because the whole point of the proposal is to change behaviour and move people from cars on to trains or buses, or other public transport. We are making bad legislation because we are putting the cart before the horse.
I come back to the specific amendments in front of us. I will support John Finnie’s amendments, because they will improve what the committee has voted for—the workplace parking levy—even though I did not vote for it. The whole focus of my attention in this process, and the job of the committee, is to improve the bill.
12:00Colin Smyth
Mr Rumbles said that he is opposed to the other amendments in this group, but he has not addressed the issue. He talked about us putting the cart before the horse. In part of my region, people are more likely to get a horse than they are to get a bus. Those constituents are the ones who will be penalised, because they will pay the levy by virtue of travelling into the city to work. They do not benefit from public transport. As the bill is currently written, none of the money that is raised will be spent on improving public transport in their area. That is why I am seeking to improve what is proposed by sharing the benefits of the levy more widely. Surely we should be looking to do that.
Mike Rumbles
I do not think that it is possible to focus on the person rather than the employer. I do not see how we can get round the fact that it is the employer that will pay the levy. To seek to do so is to miss the whole purpose of amendment 17. Therefore, I will not support what Colin Smyth wants to do.
I am trying to do what I think is the right thing, which is to improve the bill. Amendments 17, 18 and 19 will do that; I say that even though I do not like what John Finnie has done in the first place. At least we can mitigate what he has done.
Michelle Ballantyne
Convener, I have to leave because I have to attend another meeting. Thank you for letting me speak. I have instructed Jamie Greene on the moving of my amendments.
The Convener
Thank you.
Jamie Greene wants to speak next.
Jamie Greene
This has been an interesting debate about the mechanics of how the scheme might work. I appreciate that Mr Rumbles is seeking to improve what has been agreed to. I totally respect his modus operandi, but I do not think that amendments 17, 18 and 19 would improve the bill, so I will not support any of them.
Let us look at some of the amendments in the group, because we will have to vote on them, if they are moved. It is important that we take a step back and look at what we will be voting on. Some of the amendments are interesting and helpful. Amendment 17R, for example, proposes an exemption from the levy for people who drive electric vehicles. I thought that we were trying to encourage people to use electric cars, so why would we charge people who move from carbon-based vehicles to electric cars for driving those electric cars to work? People will make that shift because of other provisions in the bill, such as those on the setting up of low-emission zones. Why would we give them the benefit of not being charged to enter a city through an LEZ, only to hit them with a charge for parking their electric car at their place of work? How will that take us from the current level of ownership of electric cars—0.7 per cent—to anywhere near the level that the Government and other members desire us to reach? We should definitely support an exemption for people who drive electric vehicles.
There are other sensible amendments. Michelle Ballantyne addressed the issue whether the levy is a tax on places or people. That is a key point, which John Mason and others have spoken about. The levy is a tax on places, but that is only because that is how it has been constructed. We are creating the law. The workplace parking levy was not in the bill in the first place. We are dealing with amendments to a Government transport bill. We can amend those amendments, and that is what we are trying to do. If we want to make the levy about people, we can do so; it does not have to be about places. The amendments from Miles Briggs, Pauline McNeill, Colin Smyth and Michelle Ballantyne seek to shift the focus from the place to the person because, ultimately, it is people who will pay the levy. Whether those people are small business owners or the workers in those businesses, they are still people. The whole point of many of the amendments in this group is that certain groups of people should be exempt.
What about people who are in receipt of benefits and are able to work? I do not have the numbers to hand, but I am sure that there are many thousands of people in Scotland who are in receipt of some form of benefit and are able to, and choose to, work. Why should they have to pay the levy?
For goodness’ sake, what about people who are driving adapted cars because of disabilities? Are we really suggesting that we will charge them as well? What on earth is this committee doing? Let us have a really long, hard look at ourselves. If we are not going to exempt places, let us think about exempting people. Let us think about the people we want to help get into the workplace, not put off. Charging them to park at work is not the way to get them back into the workplace.
The Convener
No other committee member wishes to speak so I ask the cabinet secretary to make his remarks.
Michael Matheson
In many ways, amendment 17 is at the heart of workplace parking licensing schemes. The amendment is explicit that the charge applies to
“the occupier of the premises”
not the employee. As John Finnie has made clear, the powers in subsection (1)(b) of the section that will be inserted by amendment 17 to specify other persons who can have charges imposed on them is absolutely not about requiring employees or anybody else who uses workplace parking to pay the charges. It cannot do that. I therefore agree that the amendments—
Mike Rumbles
I agree entirely with what you have said, but surely the intention is to change behaviour—to move people out of their cars, on to public transport—and therefore the intention of amendment 17 is to make sure that that charge is passed on to the employee.
Michael Matheson
A variety of options are available to premises owners. For example, in Nottingham, the university repurposed a large part of its car park for other use. Employers could do something similar; they could decide to reduce the number of parking spaces that they make available in order to encourage people to make use of public transport. They could turn their car park into a green space if they wanted to. There are other options available to employers.
The other amendments in this group that seek to amend or make provision about the exercise of the powers in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new section set out in amendment 17 in order to prevent or restrict the imposition of charges on people who use workplace parking are misconceived and I therefore cannot support them.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new section that is set out in amendment 17 is very important. It gives local authorities the flexibility to vary how the scheme applies. This is the very opposite of the restrictive approach that has been claimed for the scheme and indeed the approach that would be imposed on local authorities by some of the amendments that have been proposed. That flexibility is to be welcomed, as it gives local authorities the scope to address, at a local level, many of the concerns that have been raised as they will be able to vary charges for different days, times, premises or classes of vehicle. It also allows local authorities to act proactively—to promote low-carbon vehicles, for example.
Amendment 17 also requires local authorities to consider how they will direct the funds raised by the schemes when they are setting charges. That is addressed further in amendment 18, which makes crystal clear that a workplace parking licensing scheme is not simply a revenue-raising exercise. I am clear that it is our responsibility to set the framework for workplace parking levies and then to allow local authorities flexibility to apply them in ways that are sensitive to local circumstances; the provisions in amendment 17 do that.
Amendment 18 provides clear direction on how the funds raised should be used. It does not say what funds should be used for, but it requires the local authority proposing a scheme to have a local transport strategy, and the funds raised should go towards the facilitation of that strategy.
A workplace parking licensing scheme should be proposed only where it will help to meet wider objectives. The role of the local transport strategy is to make sure that clear strategic objectives are being set. The objectives and the local transport strategy will be agreed locally. That will in turn inform the scheme, which will—with the exception of the national exemptions—be agreed locally, so I am comfortable that amendment 18 sits well with the localism approach.
Amendment 18 also facilitates joint working, which I know was a concern for some stakeholders, and it allows for the administration costs of the scheme to be met from the funds raised by the scheme, so it should be self-sustaining.
I cannot support amendment 18A, which seeks to require a local authority operating a scheme to transfer any charges recovered from employees resident in another local authority area to that other local authority—not least because it would dilute the funding available to the local authority operating a scheme to make the necessary improvements to transport infrastructure and services in order to meet the scheme’s objectives, but also because the authority receiving those funds would not be required to apply them to improve transport in its area.
However, I am happy to support amendment 19, as it inserts a necessary regulation-making power, which is consistent with the rest of the bill. As John Finnie said, it allows for transparency in the keeping of accounts in relation to workplace parking licensing.
I ask the committee to support John Finnie’s amendments in this group should they be pressed to the vote and I ask other members not to move their amendments in this group. If they are moved, I invite the committee to reject them.
The Convener
I ask John Finnie to wind up on amendment 17.
John Finnie
I have nothing to add, thank you, convener.
The Convener
Thank you very much, Mr Finnie, for being so succinct. I ask Pauline McNeill to wind up on amendment 17C and to press or withdraw it.
Pauline McNeill
I intend to press amendment 17C and to move amendments 17A, 17B and 17D. There is no point in this Parliament passing laws on anti-poverty measures and then not making sure that they are in the framework. I included single parents because they are recorded as being one of the groups that profile as being the lowest paid, and lone parents are specifically mentioned in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 for that reason. I will not be moving amendments 17E and 17F.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17C be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 10, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17C disagreed to.
Amendment 17A moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17A disagreed to.
Amendment 17D moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17D be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17D disagreed to.
Amendments 17E, 17F and 17G not moved.
12:15Amendment 17H moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17H be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17H disagreed to.
Amendments 17I, 17J, 17K, 17L, 17M and 17N not moved.
Amendment 17O moved—[Maurice Corry].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17O be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17O disagreed to.
Amendment 17P moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17P be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17P disagreed to.
Amendment 17Q moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17Q be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17Q disagreed to.
Amendment 17R moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17R be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17R disagreed to.
Amendments 17T, 17U and 17V not moved.
Amendment 17B moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17B disagreed to.
Amendment 17S moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17S be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17S disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 18A moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 18A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18A disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment 19 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 20, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 21 to 24, 24A and 25.
John Finnie
Amendment 20 would give Scottish ministers the power to make regulations on enforcement of the workplace parking licensing scheme. They would include penalty charges for which the occupier would be liable. In practice, it is expected that enforcement would focus on issues such as occupiers not being licensed, or providing a higher number of workplace parking places than are covered by the licence that is held.
Amendment 21 would give Scottish ministers the power to specify approved devices for collection of evidence and the process for using that evidence in proceedings relating to possible failure to comply with a workplace licensing scheme. I understand that in Nottingham, for example, mobile cameras are used to monitor enforcement.
Amendment 22 sets out the enforcement and investigation powers that will be available to local authorities, including rights of entry. Those are tightly focused and targeted on investigating breaches of requirements of licensing schemes and licence conditions, as well as serving of penalty charge notices. The powers include rights of entry and to require production of information and to keep a copy of that information. The power of entry could not be used to gain access to premises that are used as a dwelling.
Amendment 23 would allow a warrant to be obtained from a sheriff to exercise the enforcement powers in amendment 24 when access to premises has been, or is likely to be, refused, or when premises are unoccupied.
Amendment 24 sets out conditions for exercise of the powers in amendment 22. It would require that a warrant be enforced
“at a reasonable time of day”.
The authorised person who enforces the warrant must provide proof of their “identity and authorisation”, if that is requested. The authorised person can
“take ... other persons, and ... equipment”
as required. If they remove any items, they must leave a statement of what has been taken and who took it. When premises are unoccupied, they must be left as secure as they were on entry.
Amendment 24 also creates offences where a person refuses to comply with a reasonable instruction or is obstructive. I am rather surprised by amendment 24A, which seeks to remove those offences. Any reasonable person would expect schemes of this nature to come with enforcement provisions. I can only imagine that amendment 24A is intended in effect to hobble enforcement of the scheme and, thus, the scheme itself. I therefore cannot support amendment 24A.
Amendment 25 deals with the powers of entry on to Crown land and would require that certain permissions be obtained before those powers could be exercised. That is a standard approach when powers of entry may be exercised in relation to such land; it does not mean that those who are named would be exempt from the workplace parking licensing scheme.
I move amendment 20.
The Convener
I call amendment 24A, which is in the name of Liam Kerr, and which Jamie Greene will speak to.
Jamie Greene
As Liam Kerr is not here, I will do my best to interpret amendment 24A. It would leave subsections (7) and (8) out of the new section that amendment 24 seeks to insert in the bill. As John Finnie said, it seeks to remove the language to do with a person committing an offence, how they might do that and what the liability would be for committing such an offence.
I understand that Liam Kerr is unhappy with the idea that, under the levy, people will be able to seek warrants to force their way into businesses, and that business owners might be committing an offence if they do not comply. Workplace parking licensing schemes will be set up in a way that could criminalise people if they are deemed not to be enforcing the provisions of such a scheme. I do not think that we should criminalise employers for providing parking.
An amendment to a transport bill is an odd place in which to create an offence that could result in convictions and fines of up to the statutory maximum. I wonder what effect that could have on people’s criminal records and whether it could have negative effects on individuals or companies.
I think that that is the premise of Mr Kerr’s amendment 24A. He might wish to explore the matter further by lodging an amendment at stage 3. His premise is that it would send a terrible message if we were to give people sweeping powers to issue warrants and force their way into businesses simply to enforce this ridiculous tax.
The Convener
No other member has indicated that they wish to speak. For members’ information, I intend to press on until the end of this group of amendments, which will take us slightly over time. Once the cabinet secretary has spoken and John Finnie has wound up, there will be a series of votes.
Michael Matheson
John Finnie’s amendments 20 to 25 seek to put in place enforcement provisions in relation to workplace parking licensing schemes. Such schemes are to be enforced by way of civil penalty charges.
Amendment 20 would give the Scottish ministers the power to set out the detail on matters such as the level of charges, when charges should be imposed, and reviews and appeals of charges.
Amendment 21 would give the Scottish ministers a further power to approve devices for use in enforcement of licensing schemes, and allow evidence from those devices to be used for enforcement purposes.
Amendments 22 to 24 seek to confer enforcement powers in respect of workplace parking licensing schemes on persons who are authorised by local authorities to exercise those powers. The powers are narrowly constrained so that they may be used only to investigate breaches of scheme requirements or licence conditions, or to serve penalty charge notices. It is anticipated that, in such cases, entry to premises would be arranged by agreement, although there is a power to obtain a warrant from a sheriff when entry is refused.
I consider the powers that amendments 20 to 25 seek to confer to be necessary and proportionate in enabling effective monitoring and enforcement of workplace parking licensing schemes. They contain significant safeguards against misuse, and I support them.
I do not support amendment 24A, in the name of Liam Kerr. It is not clear why Mr Kerr proposes that obstructing a duly authorised enforcement officer, who exercises powers conferred under an act of this Parliament, should go unpunished. Although, in practice, such an offence would be used sparingly, if the option were not available, there would be nothing to discourage licence holders and others from refusing to co-operate with those who are tasked with monitoring compliance with workplace parking licensing schemes.
In summary, I reiterate my support for John Finnie’s amendments and ask committee members to support them. I ask that amendment 24A not be moved. I ask that committee members reject it, if it is moved.
12:30John Finnie
I will make no further comment. I press amendment 20.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Amendment 21 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Amendment 24 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 24A not moved.
The Convener
I ask John Finnie to press or to seek to withdraw amendment 24.
John Finnie
I press amendment 24.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Amendment 318 not moved.
The Convener
That is as far as we can go today. We will continue next week.
Richard Lyle
For the benefit of anybody watching, I intimate again that I cannot make it to the next meeting. I have been allowed off next Wednesday, and my substitute member will be here.
The Convener
You have not been “allowed off”; you are going to be away. However, the point is duly noted.
I thank everybody for taking part in today’s meeting. I remind members that amendments to the remaining sections of the bill should be lodged with the clerks in the legislation team by 12 noon on Thursday 20 June. That concludes today’s business.
Meeting closed at 12:35.19 June 2019
Second meeting on changes
Documents with the changes considered at this meeting: