Official Report 706KB pdf
Workplace Parking Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2022 (SSI 2022/4)
Agenda item 3 is an evidence-taking session on a Scottish statutory instrument. As the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, they will become law unless within 40 days a motion to annul is lodged. If such a motion is lodged, the instrument must be debated by the lead committee which, in this case, is this one.
The regulations help to pave the way for workplace parking licensing and, as they set out a number of practical considerations and issues, it is important that we take evidence from the minister and officials before we formally dispose of the instrument at our next meeting. I therefore welcome to the meeting Jenny Gilruth, the Minister for Transport, and her officials Heather Cowan, Elizabeth Hawley and Sandy McNeil, who are joining us remotely. Thank you for making yourselves available for this session.
I also want to welcome Ms Gilruth to her new ministerial role. The committee will also want to pass on its best wishes to her predecessor, Graeme Dey MSP. Finally, I should say that we have been joined by Graham Simpson MSP for consideration of the instrument.
Minister, I believe that you want to make a short opening statement.
Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the Workplace Parking Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2022, convener.
As you will be aware, the power for local authorities to set up workplace parking licensing schemes was included in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, and further regulations and guidance are necessary for local authorities to implement them. In line with the commitment in our climate change plan update, the national transport strategy delivery plan and the 2022-23 Scottish budget, the regulations were laid in Parliament last month, and they will be followed by guidance for local authorities in the first half of 2022.
The purpose of the regulations is to make detailed and technical provision on certain elements of the framework already set out in the 2019 act so that local authorities can use the tool that Parliament has provided to implement workplace parking licensing schemes that suit their local circumstances. The provisions will ensure that the schemes operate effectively and fairly.
As the previous Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee heard back in 2019 in an evidence-taking session on workplace parking licensing during stage 2 consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill, workplace parking licensing schemes have the potential to encourage the use of more sustainable travel while raising revenue that will be used to improve public and sustainable transport. It also supports our commitment to reducing the amount of car kilometres travelled by 20 per cent by 2030 as part of our climate change goals.
These new discretionary local powers, which are already held by councils in England and Wales, were welcomed by our local authority partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local leaders of all parties, and they support the Government’s aim of putting greater say over local resources in local hands, which is an ambition that has also been supported by leaders across the political parties.
I am pleased that the regulations have been laid so that local authorities can use the new powers, should they choose to do so. My officials and I will be happy to answer the committee’s questions on the content of the regulations and the framework that they provide for local authorities.
Thank you very much, minister. We will now move to questions. As quite a few members wish to ask questions, I would appreciate brief responses, if that is at all possible.
Concerns have been raised that the regulations could be highly regressive in their impact. What assessment has been made to ensure that the workplace parking levy will not disproportionately impact people on lower pay, who might not be able to afford it, thereby making parking at work the preserve of those on higher salaries who can afford the additional expense?
It is important to say that assessments were carried out on the impact of the regulations. Of course, the decisions that were made by Parliament during the passage of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 fell outwith the scope of those impact assessments. The decisions in that respect would have been those that were made by local authorities.
You have suggested that such schemes might create inequality. I know from my constituency and local experience that poor areas have low levels of car ownership, so there is already a challenge in facilitating behavioural change in that respect. However, we also know that there is likely to be more car ownership in richer areas of society, which means that it is hugely important for local authorities to think carefully about how the scheme is introduced. Of course, it is up to local authorities to make prescription for the scheme locally and, indeed, to take into consideration some of the key issues that you have raised about inequality and the impact on local staff members.
Can you confirm the discretionary nature of the powers and that two or more local authorities can choose to implement a joint workplace parking licensing scheme? We should also bear it in mind that a number of political parties advocated such a scheme for the city of Edinburgh, even though a lot of commuters come not from Edinburgh itself but from, for example, my constituency in West Lothian. What are the options for co-ordinating the revenue from the levy between two local authorities?
12:15
In response to Fiona Hyslop’s first question, I note that the nature of the power in the legislation is that it is a discretionary power for local authorities. Therefore, it will be for individual local authorities to decide whether they wish to use the power and to shape proposals that will suit local circumstances. Importantly, local authorities will be required to undertake a public consultation and impact assessment before implementing a WPL scheme. That links back to the convener’s point about inequity and how that might be tackled locally. In addition, authorities may use revenues from the WPL to support policies in their local transport strategies. That is a hugely important aspect of the revenue that the scheme will generate.
Fiona Hyslop also asked whether such a scheme can be implemented across more than one local authority area. That is correct—that is the case. That is built into the legislation.
The instrument makes provision for schemes to be examined by a reporter, but only if the council chooses, and it will be for the council to choose the scope of that examination. The reporter goes on to decide on the process and a timetable for it. Some might feel that that amounts to the council marking its own homework. Under what circumstances would a council be expected to go through that process? Is it the default position that a reporter would be involved? What issues would the reporter consider when deciding on the procedure to be followed at a public examination?
On the specific issue of the scope or nature of the reporter’s work, we will outline the themes that have emerged from the public consultation in our guidance for local authorities. The consultation was undertaken to inform the regulations and the guidance. The guidance will include issues that were outwith the scope of the regulations, but which local authorities might want to look at, given their own consultations and the needs of their local communities. That guidance will refer to the support that is already available to local authorities in the existing guidance on best practice for consultations.
I appreciate that Mr Kerr might have an interest in the timescale for that. I checked with officials this morning, and we plan to publish guidance in the first half of 2022. I would be happy to share more details with the committee on that point, which I appreciate was raised in evidence with the predecessor committee.
Thank you—that would be useful. You correctly anticipated my question about the timescale.
What consideration has the Scottish Government given to a situation in which a workplace is nowhere near public transport or in which, for example, shift workers cannot get home by public transport after a certain time? On a related note, what impact does the Scottish Government anticipate that such schemes would have on surrounding streets?
I apologise but, before I address those questions, I would like to return to Mr Kerr’s question about the role of the reporter. It would be for the reporter to determine the process for examination based on the requirements that are set out in the 2019 act. The options that were available to the reporter for the examination would be considered on the basis of whether the reporter needed further information. Therefore, it would not be for me to direct the reporter in that respect. That is in line with the regulations on examination elsewhere—for example, in relation to low-emission zones.
Mr Kerr’s additional question related to access via local public transport links and potential challenges that might exist in areas where it is not apparent that such links are available. That would be a matter that would have to be considered by the local authority. It would not be for ministers to instruct an authority in that regard. However, he raises a fair concern. Of course, a requirement is built into the regulations that requires local authorities to consult locally before bringing in any new scheme. I think that that would address the issue that Mr Kerr raises.
Officials might be able to provide further specifics with regard to the historical consultation that was undertaken.
Another requirement that is built into the 2019 act is that the revenues that arise from workplace parking levies, as well as covering the net cost of the scheme, will be available to support the delivery of a local authority’s local transport strategy. That might provide scope to support public transport in a local authority’s area.
Thank you. I have one final question, minister, on measurement. The stated aims of the policy, which you alluded to earlier, include reducing car use and increasing use of public transport. How does the Scottish Government intend to formally measure what is happening in order to establish whether the implementation of a workplace parking levy has caused the aims to be achieved—in other words, that there is causation rather than simply correlation? Also, to go back to the convener’s point, how does the Scottish Government intend to measure whether, if employers pass the cost on to employees, we are not simply forcing the lower-paid members of a company on to public transport while the higher-paid members avail themselves of the parking spaces?
On Mr Kerr’s specific point about measurement, the scheme will be administered at the local level. Given that local discretion is built into the scheme, we will expect local authorities to take it forward on condition of the local circumstances in front of them. I do not think that there will be a statutory application of the scheme nationwide, for example.
Ms Hyslop gave the idea of local authorities working together, which makes sense, particularly when there are blurred boundaries and people commute across local authority boundaries.
It is really a matter for local authorities to measure the impact in their local areas. As to the aims that Mr Kerr sets out in relation to a reduction in car kilometres, we absolutely expect that the legislation will drive behavioural change and he knows the importance of facilitating that modal change away from cars and on to public transport.
On the convener’s point around potential challenge in terms of inequity, that was considered previously with regard to how poorer employees might fare, in that they might not be able to afford the expense that the levy would incur. It is important to note that this is about local authorities taking local decisions and then employers deciding whether they want to pass that charge on. That links back to how a local authority might carry out its own consultation locally to look at the needs of employees. I very much hope and would expect that local employers and local authorities would consider the financial encumbrance of the charge on the earnings of employees, which is hugely important. We do not want to make this a prohibitive measure at all.
The second part of Mr Kerr’s question is about how we make public transport more affordable. We already undertake a number of mechanisms in that space. Last week, for example, we launched the under-22s free bus travel scheme. We also have the fair fares review, which allows us to look at not only how public transport joins up but, equally, at how that funding is applied and how charges are applied equitably—or not, as may be the case—across the country. That is a huge challenge as we move forward but it is not a reason not to move to the scheme and I hope that Mr Kerr will understand my views and the reasoning behind that.
I have no further questions, convener.
Where workplace parking levies have been introduced, they have raised millions and millions of pounds for public transport and active travel investment, but is there a requirement on councils to invest in those types of priorities?
The measure points to local transport strategies. Investment priorities for those strategies could be broader than just investment in active travel and public transport, so can we get a reassurance that the money that is raised will be invested in the solutions that people need to get them out of cars in the first place?
Mr Ruskell is right to say that any revenue that is raised by the workplace parking levy must be used to support local transport strategies, which can support greener transport choices and affordable public transport.
Nottingham, which Mr Ruskell has mentioned, has had its own WPL scheme since, I think, 2012, and has one of the highest levels of public transport use in the UK, with an associated decrease of 40 million car miles over the past 15 years alone.
The revenue from the WPL scheme has also supported the expansion of Nottingham’s successful tram system and the redevelopment and capacity enhancement of Nottingham train station, along with investment in bus services and electric buses. Nottingham City Council officials have said that those schemes would not have happened without the WPL. They have also made grants available to support employers to put in place sustainable transport measures such as bike parking, showers, electric vehicle charge points and car park management systems, for example.
There is a requirement that the revenue raised would be reinvested locally. It speaks to the importance of giving local authorities discretion to decide on their own local transport strategy and priorities, and using the funding to support that accordingly.
Would you expect that, in any consultation on the introduction of a workplace parking levy, the public would be consulted on their priorities? Would they be able to see that there are alternatives coming down the track and that they will not be lumped with paying the charges for ever, because there will be investment in alternatives?
Yes—absolutely. There is a requirement on local authorities to consult locally with the people whom they represent. It is imperative that people who live locally have an opportunity to feed into what the strategy looks like and how they experience it.
Good afternoon, minister, and congratulations on your new role.
What type of conditions are likely to be applied to licences? Can you give some examples? How would compliance with conditions be monitored and resourced?
As I mentioned in previous answers to other members, it is for the local authority that proposes the scheme, and for Scottish ministers, to determine whether it is appropriate for an examination to be initiated.
The provisions in the regulations and in the act do not place constraints in respect of why an examination might be initiated. Ministers and the local authority make a decision on whether to initiate an examination, but only after the local authority has completed its own consultation and impact assessments and has proposed a scheme.
It would be inappropriate to speculate on a potential reason for, or the scope of, an examination for schemes, as no such schemes have yet been consulted or proposed. Heather Cowan may want to say more on the specifics of the regulation in relation to your question.
I want to clarify my question, minister, as I think that you answered a different question. I am sorry if I was not clear. I am thinking about what happens once a licence has been approved. It is a bit like when planning consent is given and conditions are set. Do we know, from learning elsewhere, what conditions typically look like and how compliance is monitored—[Interruption.]
I am sorry: my dog is barking.
It would be for the reporter to determine the process for examination, based on the requirements that are set out in the 2019 act. I will bring in Heather Cowan on the specifics.
The question is on licensing conditions, so my colleague Elizabeth Hawley will be happy to come in. If the member has specific points that she would like us to answer, we will be happy to take them away and write to the committee.
Yes.
I am looking for examples of what conditions might look like. I know that that is a matter for the local authority, but do we know, from lessons elsewhere—such as Nottingham—what conditions tend to look like?
Elizabeth Hawley will come in on that just now.
I am not aware of any conditions that Nottingham has placed on the licences that it has issued. Local authorities can make local exemptions. For example, Nottingham has exempted small employers that have under a certain number of car parking spaces. Under the 2019 act, local authorities could also create a WPL that is in force only in certain areas within the authority boundary, or only on certain days of the week or at certain times of day. There is provision for local exemptions under the English regulations, and Nottingham has made use of that.
I am not aware of any conditions that Nottingham has imposed, but I am happy to double-check and write to the committee if that would be helpful.
That would be helpful, thank you.
My last question is about driver behaviour change. What modelling has been carried out to look at a scenario in which the levy is passed on by the employer to workers and a scenario in which it is not? Is there modelling that shows different outcomes?
The only example of modelling that we have to compare it to is the Nottingham scheme. I do not know whether officials are sighted on that. I do not have that data in front of me. I apologise to Monica Lennon, but I can ask officials to share that with her. The Nottingham example is the best one that we know of, and that modelling will exist because the scheme has been in place for some time. If officials can confirm that we have that data, I would be happy to share it with the member.
12:30
I am happy to come in on that. There has been some evaluation and assessment of the evidence on the Nottingham scheme. In relation to the modelling that local authorities would do in Scotland, we would expect them to look at that as part of their business case ahead of proposing a scheme. That would help to inform their decisions on the design and so on of local schemes.
It would helpful for the committee to see any modelling or forecast.
My question is more for clarification than anything else, if you do not mind. Based on the questioning that we have heard today, I am a little worried that there might be some confusion about who would be responsible for paying the levy. Could I get clarification from the minister on that? My understanding is that the occupier of the premises would be liable for it. I am aware that some companies currently charge for spaces. Is that any different to what is being proposed? I do not know whether I have made the situation any easier or simpler.
I thank Jackie Dunbar for her question. She is right that employers would pay an annual levy to the council for every parking space that they have, and it would be for the employer to decide whether they pass on that charge to its employees. It is important to recognise the differentiation in relation to the role of local authorities and the role of local employers, and how employees will experience the charge—or not experience the charge, as their employer may decide not to pass it on. Officials may want to come in on the specifics of the regulations in relation to the potential confusion that Jackie Dunbar spoke to.
The regulations cover the circumstances in which persons other than the occupier of premises would be liable to attain a licence and pay the licence charge. That covers the situation that the member asked about where an employer leases parking spaces from another provider. Where there is sufficient evidence of parking arrangements between the provider and the employer, the requirement would pass from the occupier to the employer, and the regulations cover that circumstance.
Heather’s sound was very soft, but I think that I got most of that.
I go back to the Nottingham scheme on a point of information. Just more than half of companies that are involved in the scheme pass on the charge to their employees—that is a fact. That goes back to the convener’s first question. However, my question is on something different. Minister, I cannot see anything in the regulations or the parent act that sets a limit on what councils can charge for a licence. Can you help me there?
Graham Simpson raises the Nottingham scheme, which, as we have discussed, has been running since 2012. It has helped to generate a fall of 40 million car miles over 15 years. It is worth saying that in the scheme’s first six years of operation it raised £53 million, which was ring fenced for transport improvements, including two further lines on the Nottingham express transit tram system, the upgrading of faster facilities at Nottingham station and on-going support for the link bus network.
I know that, at the time that the scheme was introduced, Mr Simpson was keen that we needed to
“empower councils and give them a renewed sense of meaning and purpose”,
so I hope that he supports the legislation and the ability for local authorities to make those decisions.
That brings me to his question about the role of ministers in the Scottish Government in setting a limit. It is, of course, for local authorities to take a view on what limit to set to the charge. It is important that the responsibility lies with local authorities to look at their local circumstances and decide what that might be.
My officials might want to say more about that.
I just add that there are consultation requirements for local authorities. An authority will have to set out what its scheme entails, which will include its proposed charge, and that will form part of the consultation and the impact assessment. The regulations set out requirements for local authorities on how they must make the information available.
I am quite astonished that the minister and her official have just confirmed that there is no limit whatever on what councils can charge for a licence. That will frighten the life out of businesses in Scotland.
Scottish Chambers of Commerce and Glasgow Chamber of Commerce—Glasgow is one of the cities in which the levy could be introduced—say that the levy should be scrapped or at least put on hold while we recover from the pandemic. Have you considered doing that, minister?
I think, having listened to your question, that some of what you are suggesting is on the margins of scaremongering. It will be for local authorities to decide what costs will be incurred locally.
If I were to set a top limit, I would be accused of interfering with local democratic principles. We have to get the balance right. It is important that local authorities are trusted to look at their local circumstances. They will consider any applications through their consultation processes and they will look at the needs of the communities that they represent, and I expect them to set an appropriate charge, accordingly.
I should also say that the approach to penalty charges in the regulations is in line with the approach to other penalty charges when it comes to, for example, the manner of issuing, increased charges for late payment and information on penalty charge notices.
I am concerned that Mr Simpson is potentially scaremongering on this issue. I trust local authorities to set charges at levels that are appropriate and right for the communities that they represent.
I am not scaremongering, and there is a difference between penalty charges—you are right to mention them, minister; I think that the maximum penalty charge for non-compliance is £5,000—and the licence charge, which is what I was asking about, and in relation to which you have confirmed that there is no upper limit. I will leave it there, convener.
I want to follow up the point about the Scottish Government not imposing limits on local authorities. An upper limit was set on the council tax increase that local authorities could impose. Why not take a similar approach and set a limit on what authorities can impose through the workplace parking levy?
You will appreciate that I was not in post when the legislation was introduced. However, I can share with the committee the rationale for not introducing a limit in this regard.
We would appreciate that. You can understand that the charge potentially being unlimited, under the regulations, will be of concern to businesses large and small throughout the country who might have to pay it.
I hear what you are saying and I will be more than happy to write to the committee with the detail of why a limit was not set, if that would be appropriate.
That would be great, thank you.
That brings us to the end of our questions. I thank the minister and her officials for joining us; it was very much appreciated. The committee will formally dispose of the instrument at our meeting on 22 February.
12:39 Meeting continued in private until 12:54.