Official Report 1168KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-03279, in the name of Graham Simpson, on a workplace parking tax. I ask members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button or to put an R in the chat function now, or as soon as possible.
16:08
Yesterday, I moved in committee a motion to annul an instrument that brought in provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 to allow councils to introduce the hated workplace parking tax. Not surprisingly, thanks to the SNP and the Greens, my motion was defeated. The motion gave the Minister for Transport the chance to do the right thing—to step back from the precipice—but she did not take it.
The SNP and its coalition of chaos partners have chosen to ignore business, they have chosen to ignore the entire public sector, and they have chosen to ignore shift workers and people who are low paid. If they want to get people out of their cars, they could have used the 2019 act to introduce provisions on public transport partnerships, but they have not done that.
It has surely not passed anyone by that we have been through a tough time in the past two years. It cannot have escaped anyone’s notice that work patterns have changed, and even the most anti-business person would accept that our town and city centres have been particularly hard hit.
Liz Cameron, who is the chief executive of Scottish Chambers of Commerce, said that businesses are “incredulous”. They are. I have been contacted by a number of businesses, all of which are too nervous to go public. What a sorry state of affairs. Unlike the minister, I have spoken to the business sector, including in the east midlands, where people are worried about what is to come in Leicester—the home of Walkers Crisps, which has a big car park. This could be Leicester’s crisp tax.
It is not as though companies that have parking spaces for staff and visitors are not already paying for them: the Scottish Retail Consortium has made the point that they pay through business rates.
The tax is a double whammy on commuting. The workplace parking tax is simply a money-raising tool for councils, which—let’s face it—need everything they can get. In order to bring in the levy, a council needs merely to have a local transport strategy. The car park tax must go towards helping with that strategy, which means that it does not need to be about reducing motor vehicle travel—it can be used for anything. The money will go into a general pot.
It is no wonder that SNP councils that have been denied funds by their own Government are gearing up to bring in the tax. Anti-car City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council cannot wait, although Susan Aitken, who has one eye on the council elections, is trying temporarily to distance herself from it. In the unfortunate event that Ms Aitken remains as Glasgow council leader after May, we can expect her to get back on track. Her official, connectivity officer Deborah Paton, excitedly told councillors that a levy could raise as much as £30 million, but that was before Jenny Gilruth confirmed that there would be no limit on what councils can charge.
Does Graham Simpson accept that there is an air pollution problem in Glasgow and, potentially, in Edinburgh, that there is congestion on the roads and that we need to tackle those things?
The way to tackle those things is by improving public transport, which I will come to.
Ms Gilruth says that the Government can call in schemes, but when she was given the opportunity yesterday, she refused to say what she thought an acceptable cap might be, and instead said that that is up to councils. Is £300, £500 or £1,000 a year okay? I will allow the minister to intervene if she wants to respond.
I thank Mr Simpson for the opportunity, but I answered his question yesterday. The power is a local power for local authorities to decide on. I thought that the Conservatives believed in localism. Why do they want me to take that power away from councils?
Once again, the minister refuses to say what she thinks would be an acceptable limit.
It is not clear what the workplace parking tax is meant to achieve. If it is meant to persuade people to use public transport, public transport first needs to improve. We know that the SNP is no good when it comes to running things. When it runs the ferries, islanders are left stranded. Now it wants to run the trains, but cannot tell us what it wants to do with them, apart from cut services and increase fares. From nat sail to nat rail, it all adds up to a big nat fail.
That is what happens when you give the Greens influence or—even worse—bring them into Government. A party that wants to take us back to the stone age has two Government ministers. It is like having the Flintstones around the Cabinet table, with Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater as Fred and Wilma.
The tax will hit workers. We have seen that in Nottingham, where more than half of affected employers pass on the cost to their staff. However, when we tried to exempt groups including the police, the fire brigade, ambulance staff, teachers, shift workers and people who live or work nowhere near public transport, the SNP and the Greens blocked that. Yesterday, Ms Gilruth refused to do anything about those sectors, and confirmed to Liam Kerr that the Government has done no modelling on what effect the hated workplace parking tax might have. It is her rather strange view that we do modelling only once something is already in place.
Would Mr Simpson give way on that point?
I have already given way. The minister can explain that in her speech.
The SNP and the Greens say that they want to get people out of their cars. The way to do that is not by hammering hard-working Scots who are just trying to get on with life. A viable alternative needs to be offered. If we want people to stop driving petrol and diesel cars, the electric vehicle charging network needs to be up to scratch, but it is not. If we want people to use public transport, it has to be there in the first place and it needs to be cheap to use, reliable and frequent, but it is not. The job of Government is to help people, not to hinder them. The coalition of chaos does not get that, but we do.
I move,
That the Parliament condemns taxing drivers through the introduction of the Workplace Parking Levy, and believes that the focus of the Scottish Government should be on supporting the roll-out of electric vehicles and the infrastructure to support them and on making public transport more efficient and affordable, not on using taxes to force families in Scotland into giving up their cars.
I call the minister to speak to and move amendment S6M-03279.2.
16:14
I welcome the opportunity to debate the merits of having provided discretionary powers to local authorities to implement workplace parking licensing schemes, and to say how they can support our climate change goals. It is worth saying that although the technical regulations were agreed at committee yesterday, the primary legislation was passed in Parliament more than two years ago, as part of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.
Workplace parking licensing schemes have the potential to encourage use of more sustainable transport while raising revenue that will be used to improve public and sustainable transport. We know that the largest share of transport emissions comes from cars, which account for 39 per cent of Scotland’s transport emissions. All parties in Parliament supported the ambitious and legally binding emissions reduction targets in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. Now is the time to show that support through action.
I agree that the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure and improvements to public transport play important roles in our work on decarbonising transport, as the Conservative motion mentions.
If the levy is about reducing emissions from cars, why are electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles not exempt categories in the legislation?
Mr Kerr seems to think that we should look at electric vehicles and public transport in isolation. We need to look at emissions in the round. We are taking a hugely important step, and the provision is about empowering local authorities to do the work.
As I mentioned before Mr Kerr interrupted, I agree that roll-out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure has a role to play. On 26 January, we announced a new draft vision for the public charging network, along with plans for a £60 million fund that will double the size of the public network over the next few years by levering in commercial investment.
Measures to make public transport more efficient and affordable are also a priority. Mr Simpson made mention of that in his opening remarks and it was highlighted in our route map to reducing car use, which was published last month. The measures include provision of free bus travel for under-22s and our fair fares review, which is hugely important and will consider options for change against the background of the costs of car travel declining and public transport costs increasing.
We are also investing record amounts in active travel. However, we need to get folk out of their cars. This is about behaviour change.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress.
Disincentivisation measures, such as WPL schemes, are needed if we are to reach the targets. The regulations allow local authorities to deploy the powers in the face of the climate emergency. Neglecting the powers risks our climate change commitments, which members appear to be willing to sign up to but not to follow through on with action.
Giving local authorities powers to implement workplace parking licensing schemes is consistent with the situation for councils in England and Wales, which already have workplace parking licensing powers. The Conservative Government at Westminster has been content to retain the power for councils in England.
The implementation of the workplace parking scheme in Nottingham has demonstrated the potential benefits that are offered by such schemes. We know that public transport use in Nottingham is among the highest in the country, and there has been a reduction of 40 million car miles over the past 15 years. The revenue from the scheme there has supported the expansion of Nottingham’s successful tram system and the redevelopment and capacity enhancement of its train station, along with investment in bus services.
Nottingham City Council’s success is leading other councils to follow suit, with both Oxford City Council and Leicester City Council aiming to introduce workplace parking schemes by 2023.
On that note—
Although I have already taken an intervention from Mr Kerr, I will take another on that point.
Is the minister not aware that Nottingham invested in its public transport before it brought in the levy?
Mr Kerr seems to be suggesting that we are not already investing in public transport in Scotland. We are investing in our rail and bus infrastructure; we cannot do just one thing in isolation.
Local Labour leaders here in Scotland remain supportive of the scheme. On 10 February, the deputy leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, Cammy Day said:
“I remain supportive of the”
scheme
“as agreed in our Manifesto.”
Giving the power to Scottish local authorities supports our aim to give local hands more say over local resources. That is something that the Conservatives profess to be in favour of and which has been welcomed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local leaders.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress, please.
As Councillor Steven Heddle, who is COSLA’s environment and economy spokesperson, noted when the legislation was passed:
“I feel it should be remembered that the”
scheme
“has been conceived as a devolved policy for councils … it seems premature to ... expect local authorities to have all the answers at this stage of the debate.
This would defeat the purpose and essence itself of the levy as a flexible scheme to the discretion of the council and it fundamentally questions our councils’ ability to develop effective schemes that are appropriate”.
We have to trust our councils to get it right for their local areas. It is also worth repeating that the powers were provided by Parliament on the basis that local authorities can design schemes that reflect their local circumstances. It is not for me or for the Government to do that; rather, it is important that we trust our local authority partners to get it right for their local areas.
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
I am in my last minute.
Local authorities must consult locally those who are likely to be impacted by local schemes, and they should undertake impact assessments. Reducing car travel will help to improve air quality and safety; we know that those issues have disproportionate impacts on the less-well-off people in our society.
Ahead of the debate, Transform Scotland noted:
“A factor that has contributed to the increase in car use over the past decade, while bus use has fallen, is the relative cost of driving.
This has effectively made driving cheaper over time while bus use has become significantly more expensive.
This trend has affected the poorest in Scotland most adversely”.
We know that 60 per cent of people who are on the lowest incomes have no access to a car. Among people with long-term health problems or disabilities, the figure is 46 per cent.
The workplace parking levy is old news. The primary legislation, which can only be undone by new primary legislation, has been on the statute book for more than two years. I have heard no proposals today to reintroduce new primary legislation to undo that. There is no vision from the Conservatives and no new ideas—just opposition for opposition’s sake. Surely the people of Scotland deserve better than that.
I move amendment S6M-03279.2, to leave out from “condemns” to end and insert:
“notes that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 gives local authorities the discretionary power to implement a workplace parking licensing scheme within the context of their local transport strategy and, if a scheme is proposed, requires local authorities to undertake consultation and impact assessments on their local proposals; welcomes that COSLA and local leaders of political parties positively greeted these new powers being provided to local authorities at the time of the Act in 2019; acknowledges that local authorities in England and Wales have had these powers for over a decade, with Nottingham City Council so far making use of them, and other authorities, including Oxford and Leicester, now also considering their use, and recognises that, as well as supporting a reduction in congestion and meeting climate change goals, workplace parking schemes will raise revenue to invest in local transport priorities, including public transport and active travel, and align with other recent Scottish Government initiatives such as free bus travel for under-22s, record investment in active travel, investment in electric vehicle infrastructure and the target to reduce car kilometres by 20% by 2030.”
16:21
I welcome this debate led by Graham Simpson. Let us be clear: despite what the minister said, too many people across Scotland simply cannot rely on our public transport system to get to work—and that is truer today than it was when the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed. There has been a huge contraction in the bus network and in rail services since the pandemic, and services are not returning to pre-pandemic levels. Just two weeks ago, the Scottish Government made it clear that it does not support returning ScotRail services to pre-pandemic levels—at least not now, and not any time soon.
People who take the car to work because there is no affordable or convenient alternative should not be penalised for the failures of this Government—the Government that is responsible for the failed deal with Abellio and that took us into the pandemic with bus passenger numbers at a record low.
A commuter tax on getting to work is not the solution—not for the economy, not for the climate and not for workers, and certainly not when people are facing a cost of living crisis. The SNP and Greens rightly criticise the Conservatives’ cuts to universal credit by £20 per week, but they are now enabling proposals to hit low-income workers with a tax that could be up to £20 per week.
The solution is to transform public transport and invest in real, viable alternatives to car dependency, with alternatives such as integrated multimodal ticketing, which was promised 10 years ago, or a publicly controlled bus network for Strathclyde, with its population of 2.1 million. City regions across England are planning to take control of bus networks. If we want to make bus travel more affordable, why are we not doing that here in Scotland, in cities such as Glasgow? It is telling that the Government is proposing to grant powers for this tax before rolling out the bus regulation powers contained in the 2019 act.
Our society faces two great challenges: a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis. We do not deal with the cost of living crisis by taxing commuters getting to work; we deal with it by transforming public transport.
Let me be clear: Scottish Labour opposes the workplace parking levy. We opposed it in 2019, and we oppose it now. We are demanding that this tax on working people stops before it starts. With living costs rising faster than at any time in the past 30 years, we are demanding that the Scottish Government act now. It is wrong for ministers, who have the privilege of a chauffeur-driven car to get to work, to impose this commuter tax now. It is wrong for MSPs, who claim mileage and enjoy free parking, to impose this tax now. Politicians here do not experience transport poverty. The Green and nationalist MSPs behind this tax are not on low incomes. There are people experiencing transport poverty in Scotland now, however, and they could be hit if and when their employer passes this levy on to them. I say to those politicians: do not punish the working people of this country, who have kept Scotland going throughout the pandemic, for your failure to provide a decent public transport system.
We know that there has been no modelling of the impact of the levy, and there is no consistency on exemptions, so we face the possibility that healthcare workers will be exempt, but a low-paid cleaner working late for a private employer will not be.
There has been no engagement at ministerial level with the trade unions since the 2019 act was passed. For all those reasons, the levy should be stopped.
We know that the concentration of workplaces in city centres drives commuting patterns that place a strain on our cities, and we understand city councillors’ concerns about congestion and air quality, especially in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We believe that the Scottish Government should work constructively with Scotland’s cities to address those issues comprehensively.
Nonetheless, action on air quality and congestion must not be limited to a single ineffective unfair tax. The Conservative motion rightly identifies the need to promote electric vehicles, but the Scottish Government and councils have to ensure that charging infrastructure is easy to use, convenient and resilient. The Government can do more. It can, for example, provide new park-and-ride facilities, restore suburban rail services and embed better access to public transport in planning guidance, and I have written to the minister to ask her to consider those points.
Scottish Labour is prepared to work constructively with the Government to reduce pollution and congestion in our cities. We say to the Government that there are alternatives and better ways to reduce car dependency, and we will work together to find solutions. However, the imposition of a new tax on working people who are in the grip of a cost of living crisis solves nothing. I appeal to members to support the Labour amendment today and demand better for Scotland’s commuters.
I move amendment S6M-03279.1, to leave out from “, not on using taxes” to end and insert:
“; believes that the Workplace Parking Levy will unfairly penalise working people who have no option but to drive to work due to the chronic failure of the Scottish Government to improve public transport; regrets the Scottish Government’s decision to reject calls for a freeze on rail fares this year; considers that the Scottish Government’s decision to pursue policies that increase costs faced by workers during a cost of living crisis is irresponsible; notes objections to the Workplace Parking Levy from trade unions and the business community, and considers that the Scottish Government should make positive interventions to tackle transport emissions, reduce car dependency and drive modal shift by making public transport more affordable, safe and accessible, restoring ScotRail services to pre-pandemic levels, supporting municipal ownership and control of local bus services, developing safe cycling routes, and rolling out integrated ticketing across the public transport network.”
16:26
I thank Graham Simpson for bringing the debate to the chamber. Scottish Liberal Democrats cannot support the SNP-Green plans to introduce the workplace parking levy. Since the plans were initially suggested, we have believed that they are ill-conceived and that they raise more questions than the Scottish Government has been able to answer. We can now add to that the cost of living crisis and all the challenges to business and household budgets as a result of the pandemic.
Our concerns include concerns about workers in rural, remote and island areas; the blocking up of our urban roads; adding pressure to the squeezed budgets of workers and businesses; and concerns about workers with unusual or night-time shift patterns. I will take each in turn, and outline the Scottish Liberal Democrat plans to reduce emissions and tackle the climate emergency.
For those of us who live in rural, remote and island areas, it feels as though very little consideration has been given to the impact on workers. We cannot all hop on a tram or train as an alternative to our car.
Does the member accept that it will be entirely up to each council—Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles—to decide whether it wants such a scheme?
More areas than just the islands are affected; I referred to remote and rural areas, too.
Does the Government believe that a teacher—a front-line worker who kept us going during the pandemic—should cough up for parking because they arrive early at school and public transport alternatives are irregular or non-existent?
Thank goodness that NHS sites are in line to be exempt from the levy—[Interruption.]
Excuse me, Ms Wishart. Could we have a little less chatter at the back of the chamber, please?
Those who live in urban areas might not escape some of the consequences of the levy either. Residents may now see their streets blocked up by displaced vehicles, which will, for those without driveways, potentially add to the daily battle of finding a space outside their home. All that comes after efforts to make our streets pedestrian friendly and promote a spaces-for-people approach.
For those who are on restricted incomes, the levy could be extremely tough. A disproportionate burden will be placed on people on low incomes and restricted budgets. Over the past two years, we have relied on many of those people. The idea has been floated that businesses could cover the cost of parking levies, but businesses have also had it hard throughout the pandemic, and another financial burden may push some of them from operating to close their doors permanently. What of those who work irregular hours? The levy could leave night-shift workers to pay up, while a day-shift worker can catch a bus. It is tricky for employers to staff irregular working patterns and late shifts, and the workplace parking levy could make those shift patterns harder to fill, which would be another blow to businesses.
We cannot do nothing when it comes to tackling emissions and the climate emergency, but on the levy, we need more answers from the Scottish Government. Scottish Liberal Democrats have sensible and workable suggestions to reach our climate goals. Instead of giving local councils the power to drain our workforce of their income and businesses of cash, we would empower local communities, giving them control over bus routes and timetables, ending deregulation and giving people a better local service that suits passengers. With communities in charge, bus services will go where people need them to go, not where bus companies can make the most profit.
The number of bus journeys taken since the SNP came to power has plummeted; a radical shake-up of Scotland’s transport network is required to reverse that. For young people, we need to extend the under-22 bus concession to internal ferries, which islanders use in the same way as buses, and introduce a similar rail card model as that which operates in London and the south-east, allowing everyone to apply for a third off rail cards, with those currently entitled to it receiving 50 per cent off, encouraging greater use of railways, including at the weekend. Where there are cars, let us make sure that they are as sustainable as possible; we would ensure that all new public service vehicles are phased to become electric vehicles, and a corresponding EV charging network is of course needed.
We now move to the open debate. Time is tight so I would be grateful if speakers could stick to their allotted time.
16:30
I will use the time that I have to outline the impact of the car park tax on my constituents here in Edinburgh and the wider Lothian region. Motorists in Edinburgh are set to become the highest taxed in any part of Scotland and indeed the United Kingdom, with the SNP and Green councillors on the City of Edinburgh Council planning to introduce not only the car park tax but a huge roll-out of parking zone permits across the capital. The majority of motorists in the capital will very soon be facing the burden of having to pay to park outside their homes and at their workplaces.
The City of Edinburgh Council stated that there are around 32,500 eligible parking spaces across the capital. The council estimates that it expects £14 million in revenue to be raised by the car park tax, based on the £428 per space that Nottingham currently charges.
Having no upper limit on the tax risks the City of Edinburgh Council charging individuals and businesses higher and higher charges to increase the revenue stream—all that at the very time that SNP and Green ministers are cutting local council budgets, leaving councils with little option but to use the car park tax to fill that financial void. It is little wonder that the City of Edinburgh Council—one of the lowest funded councils in Scotland by the SNP-Green Scottish Government—has been forced to look at implementing the car park tax to fill the financial black holes that it faces.
We all know that the cost of living is going up for people across Scotland, making it harder for hundreds of thousands of people across the country to break even every month. Food prices have been on the rise and pressures on energy costs are seeing bills increase.
However, the car park tax and parking zone permit charges that motorists in the capital will face will see families facing on average an additional £630 put on to their budgets after May’s council elections if the SNP and Green councillors are returned in Edinburgh.
People outside the capital travelling to work in Edinburgh from the growing communities in West Lothian, East Lothian and Midlothian, the Borders and Fife, will have to pay the City of Edinburgh Council that charge, which will be of little or no benefit to the local authorities where they live.
As I have outlined, Edinburgh motorists are facing the double whammy of new parking zone costs and the car park tax. The cost of an annual parking permit in Edinburgh is already £202, which is the third highest in the UK—in fact, it is £82 higher than in London. Overall, the average cost of a permit in cities across the UK is £103, almost half of what it is here in Edinburgh.
This legislation, giving councils the power to implement car parking taxes, is typical of the SNP-Green Government—it grants councils the powers and then blames them for putting the policies in place. That is totally unacceptable.
The Scottish Conservatives have been steadfast in our opposition to the car park tax. It is an indiscriminate tax, and it is one that will hit the most vulnerable in this country. We will see people being priced out of owning a car. The transport minister would not take my intervention earlier, but ministers have put forward a clear message, which is that poorer people in this country cannot afford to have and run a car. That is the message that this debate will send. I am happy to take an intervention from the ministers.
If the member wants an intervention, it is very clear that most of the people at the lower end of the income scale rely on public transport and on active transport. If we are concerned about transport justice, they are the people we should be supporting.
Mr Briggs—you must wind up now.
I think that the ministers and the SNP and Green members need to explain where low-income families will find £428 to pay this tax just to go to work.
Those cost of living pressures are facing families across Scotland. This is the wrong policy at the wrong time and it will hit the poorest in our society. The message today is clear that it is time—
Mr Briggs, your time is up.
16:34
I am delighted to speak in this Conservative Party debate.
Alok Sharma told the formal opening session of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow that the conference was the “last, best” chance to keep temperature rise limits to 1.5°C. He also said that he believed that the conference could
“launch a decade of ever increasing ambition and action.”
He told delegates:
“The rapidly changing climate is sounding an alarm to the world, to step up on adaptation, to address loss and damage, and ... to keep 1.5 alive ... we need to hit the ground running to develop the solutions that we need”.
He said that that work needs to start “today” and that
“we will succeed or fail as one”.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have only four minutes.
Today, Mr Sharma’s Scottish Conservative colleagues turned their backs on those words.
On that point, will the member take an intervention?
No. I have only four minutes. I am sorry.
Transport is the largest source of climate change emissions, and car use forms the largest part of those emissions.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry.
The member has made clear that he is not taking interventions, so it is not worth anybody’s time to bob up and down.
I am obviously annoying them, Presiding Officer.
I acknowledge that on-going improvements in public transport and active travel are necessary but, on their own, insufficient to meet Scottish climate targets. There is a clear need for traffic demand management. Road transport accounts for 24 per cent of all Scottish emissions, which means that road transport alone is a larger emitter than any other sector in the economy.
To meet the Scottish Government’s climate targets, significant reductions in emissions from road transport will be required. Electrification of car fleets will not be sufficient to deliver the necessary carbon reductions, so a reduction in road transport will be required in addition to the increased uptake of electric vehicles. The Scottish Government has recognised that in introducing its target to reduce car kilometres by 2030.
The workplace parking levy can generate income for public transport investment and rebalance the cost of private car use versus public transport use, as the minister mentioned. This is a discretionary power for local authorities, and the decision is one for locally elected councils. Electors will have the opportunity in May to put forward their views on who is best to take that forward.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry.
Are the Tories the self-proclaimed party of choice—or are they selective in that regard? Local authorities can choose whether and when to introduce the levy, and the choices that we make in the Parliament can drive behavioural change.
Of course, legislation that is introduced should be evidence based. The successful implementation of the workplace parking levy in Nottingham demonstrates the benefits gained: reducing congestion, improving public transport and attracting investment. In 2012, the city of Nottingham became the first UK city to successfully introduce the levy as a demand management tool to address congestion. The introduction of the levy has been shown to reduce congestion in the city and, by 2018, it had raised £53 million in revenue. Of course, that revenue helped to fund public transport improvements in the city, including the significant extension of the tram network. The key thing is that those improvements have increased take-up of public transport and have attracted further investment to the city.
In consultation with their communities, there is also scope for local authorities to exempt specified groups, types of spaces, vehicles or times.
The workplace parking levy is well placed to deliver wide benefits to a town or city while not being overly burdensome. It can target peak-time congestion and reduce pollution in towns and cities. It provides an income that can be ring fenced for sustainable transport projects and can easily accommodate exemptions for blue badge or emergency vehicle parking. The power to introduce a workplace parking levy is a discretionary power for local elected councils, so it is their choice.
At COP26, the US Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, said that
“every transportation decision is a climate decision”,
and he was right. The workplace parking levy is the right decision for our climate, our cities and our future.
When a member does not take an intervention, that is not an invitation for other members to shout their interventions from a sedentary position. I encourage members to behave courteously towards one another.
16:39
I shall take great pleasure in being courteous.
When a Government is proposing to introduce a new tax, or conferring on local government the ability to levy that tax, it would be normal practice for that Government to undertake a full economic impact assessment of the proposed measure and to state, with clarity, the specific purpose with regard to bringing in revenue and determining policy direction.
I think that the cabinet secretary was about to respond to this point during Graham Simpson’s speech, but at yesterday’s meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, she seemed to imply that such modelling is not done until a scheme is in place. I am sorry, but that is not good practice. I sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and time and time again, we are told that modelling is essential before a policy is introduced. If the cabinet secretary wants to respond, I am happy to let her do so.
I thank Ms Smith for the promotion—I am but a junior minister.
The point that I made to Liam Kerr yesterday is that it is not for me in Government to do that modelling; it is for local authorities to look at their individual local circumstances and model accordingly. The point was raised at the committee two weeks ago, and I wrote to the committee outlining the modelling that we undertook and pointing to the Nottingham example. Therefore, it is not fair to say that no modelling was undertaken, as Ms Smith says. It is absolutely a power for local authorities to consider—it is not for Government to direct.
I am interested to hear that, because if the minister reads the transcript of yesterday’s committee meeting, she will find that her response was rather different from the response that she has just given.
I will deal with the point head on. In its September 2021 consultation document, Transport Scotland states, quite rightly, that it is for
“local authorities to decide whether ... to use that power and, if so, to shape their proposals”
according to local circumstances, but—it is a big but—Transport Scotland also said that
“Supporting regulations and guidance will be necessary to provide national consistency on ... the scheme”.
I ask the minister: which is it? Is this about autonomy for local authorities to adopt a workplace parking levy should they see fit, or is it a nationally designed scheme that is overseen by ministers, who will decide key elements of the policy, such as exempted groups? In other words, the scope of the tax has already been partially restricted by Scottish ministers, which undermines the localism that the SNP says that it is supporting.
I should also make the point that, in Nottingham—which has been referred to several times as somewhere where a similar scheme was introduced—the local authority invested heavily in public transport before the levy was introduced.
There are serious issues with the tax. It is non-progressive and it impacts most on low-paid workers and apprentices.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, if the member does not mind.
The tax will apply even where there is no public transport available, which will affect night-shift workers. There are situations in which people live in one local authority area but commute to another. Should they face the levy in the latter, they would have no say in the elections of the authority that is imposing the charge.
We also know what businesses are saying about the issue. There was no consultation at the outset— comments from the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce have been mentioned.
It is incumbent on the Government to explain again the basis on which it decided that it was right to confer the power on local government. That is the key question here, but, as yet, it has not been answered. Therefore, I am happy to support the motion in the name of Graham Simpson.
16:43
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
The Conservative Party motion condemns the introduction of the workplace parking levy because it is a tax on drivers. We condemn the workplace parking levy because it is a tax on workers. At a time of rising poverty and widening inequality, the levy will make in-work poverty and our unequal society not better, but worse. For us, it is about who is bearing the cost. It is not a progressive tax on the idle rich, but a regressive tax on the working poor.
The Conservative motion also says that the Government’s priority
“should be ... the roll-out of electric vehicles”.
However, the Labour perspective on that is different as well. Of course, there should be support to make it easier for people to switch from petrol and diesel to electric vehicles, but the priority should be to get people out of their cars, green or otherwise, altogether, and on to public transport.
That is why we say to the SNP and the Greens that raising fares, closing services, halting investment, axing railway booking offices and slashing jobs on our railways—all of which they are currently doing—is not taking us in the right direction; it is taking us in exactly the wrong direction.
The minister will tell us that the levy is about free choice, but for many working people there is no free choice. Because of the shifts that they work and because of where they work, there is no public transport alternative. It is not a matter of choice.
We are also told that the measure is a
“discretionary power”
given to local authorities in the
“context of their local transport strategy”.
That is from a Government that, for 15 hard years, has been anti-local authority; that has savagely cut local government funding at three times the rate of the rest of the public sector; that has capped council tax; that has centralised police and fire services; that wanted to take education into central control; and that now wants to do the same to social work and social care. So I am not surprised that some local government leaders are considering availing themselves of these tax-raising powers, because they have suffered a decade and more of Tory, Liberal, SNP and now Green cuts to their funding and to their powers.
It is no use the First Minister tweeting or going into television studios to lament the cost of living crisis, which is already hitting the poorest the hardest, and then coming to this Parliament to propose a measure that will not ease the cost of living crisis but will deepen the cost of living crisis—it will make it worse.
The SNP boasts about its public investment in electric vehicle infrastructure. However, as I have spoken of in Parliament before, what should be a public good is being turned into a private monopoly. Seventy-four per cent of Scotland’s public network spend on electric vehicle charging points will go to Swarco, a single multinational corporation headquartered in Austria, while local suppliers are being left out in the cold.
I will be supporting the clear alternative set out by Labour this afternoon: to invest in rail; to invest in buses; to invest in active transport; and to properly invest in local transport strategies that are based on public not private transport, run for passengers, not for profit.
16:47
Transport is the largest source of climate change emissions, of which car use contributes the largest amount. In our ambition to reach net zero, we must reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030, promote active travel and improve our public transport networks.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to get started, if the member does not mind.
Time and time again, I hear from my Tory and Labour administration colleagues in Aberdeen City Council, where I serve as a councillor, that power is centralised to Holyrood and that we need more powers coming to local authorities, because they think that they know what is best for the city of Aberdeen. We now see those powers being given, along with the flexibility to tailor the levy to local circumstances, but their Holyrood party colleagues are putting more emphasis on the Government creating further exemptions and strings on the legislation and, in effect, taking away that power.
Will the member take an intervention?
The flexibility of the workplace parking levy is one of the benefits of the legislation. Local authorities are best placed to know what works for them and to create a scheme that benefits their area.
Will the member take an intervention?
Maurice Golden, the member is not taking an intervention. Please resume your seat.
Empowering local authorities to take ownership of the workplace parking levy is key to ensuring that the legislation fits each local circumstance.
Yesterday, I said that what fits in Aberdeen might not fit in Edinburgh. That is true even between areas in Aberdeen: what suits Aberdeen Donside might not suit Aberdeen Central or Aberdeen South. Local authorities need to consult our citizens and businesses to ensure that the legislation meets the needs of their workers, and they need to undertake the necessary impact assessments and decide whether a scheme fits with their local objectives.
Graham Simpson rose—
Will the member give way on that point?
I will give way, finally.
Will Jackie Dunbar campaign for car parking taxes in her constituency? Will she attempt to sell that ridiculous idea to the people who pay their taxes, obey the rules and do the best that they can to deal with all that life throws at them?
The SNP group in Aberdeen has already said that it will not introduce the car parking levy. That is local democracy. My colleague Douglas Lumsden is laughing—this from a man who has a private car parking space in the middle of Aberdeen city centre because he is a councillor while his own council staff have to pay car parking charges. I will not take lectures from the Conservatives.
It is right that the Scottish Government has introduced a blanket exemption for blue badge holders, healthcare workers at national health service premises and parking places at hospices. However, local authorities will be able to use their local knowledge and provide additional exemptions where those are required to fit the local circumstances by listening to the requirements of the area through consultation and community empowerment. Nottingham City Council, the only local authority in England to have introduced a workplace parking levy, has created a system that works for its area.
I am pleased that any revenue that is raised by the workplace parking levy will be reinvested in local transport strategies and the promotion of more affordable, greener transport choices.
I will finish off, Presiding Officer. I am sorry that I will probably be a little bit over time, if you do not mind.
In his motion, Mr Simpson criticises the Scottish Government for its investment in electric vehicle infrastructure at a time when commitments have been made to provide up to £60 million to local authorities over the next four years. That funding has the potential to double the size of the public charging network in Scotland. The workplace parking levy is about funding alternative transport options.
With all that in mind, I will support the minister’s amendment at decision time.
16:51
In debates led by Mr Simpson, I am sometimes reminded of a much-loved 1970s television character. It is not Fred Flintstone but Mr Benn. In each episode, Mr Benn would choose to dress up as a different character and would then go on an amazing adventure in which he would learn about new things. So it is with Mr Simpson. One day, he is the Lycra-clad cycle activist convening the Parliament’s cross-party group on sustainable transport; the next day—as we hear today—he is Mondeo man railing against an imaginary war on the motorist. Then, another day, we get Councillor Simpson, the erstwhile defender of local government decision making and autonomy.
However, unlike Mr Benn, Mr Simpson and his colleagues cannot be all things to everyone. If someone supports the rights of cyclists, walkers and wheelers one day, they have to follow through and support policies that tackle congestion, invest in places and make streets safer. That is what workplace parking levies do.
If Mr Simpson champions local decision making, as he does from time to time, he must trust councils to make the judgment about whether workplace parking levies are right for their areas—or not, as the case may be.
Will Mark Ruskell give way?
No.
If councils decide that workplace parking levies are part of the solution, Mr Simpson must trust them to decide what exemptions should be put in place and what levels of charge are appropriate for their local areas.
Will Mark Ruskell give way on that point?
No.
During the committee debate yesterday, we heard some contorted arguments from members who oppose the levy purely on principle. For example, Mr Simpson made the point that, because income from the levy in Nottingham has gone down over time, it is some sort of abysmal failure. It is precisely the opposite. The reason that the levy income has gone down is that people are becoming less dependent on their cars and are finding other ways to get to work, including on the trams and better buses that were funded directly from the levy.
Then we heard from Mr Simpson an upside-down world version of that point: that councils might use the levy to fund transport projects that would worsen congestion. The pitch would be something along the lines of, “Pay your way to longer journey times, more air pollution and more congestion.” I do not see that getting on anyone’s council election leaflet.
Workplace parking levies are about investment in solving the chronic health, economic and environmental problems that we have in our cities, which are caused by congestion, air pollution and town centre decline. It would be wrong to hold back progress on the introduction of those levies where councils want them. We face a cost of living crisis, but people on the lowest incomes are the least likely to have access to a car, and many of those people are dependent on bus services.
Ending the cycle of decline of bus services in Scotland means making services more affordable, reliable and accessible, increasing passenger numbers and improving profitability so that routes can be restored. Nottingham used its levy income to invest heavily in bus and tram, reversing the decline and cutting 40 million car miles over the past 15 years.
Scotland needs to cut its carbon emissions by three quarters in just nine years. That is a sobering thought. If members did not want workplace parking levies in 2019 and want to delay them again now, they need to say what other form of demand management they will put in place. Right now, our climate targets are dead in the water unless we see a huge reduction in road traffic emissions. It is clear that business as usual will lead us down a road of no return. It is time to get behind workplace parking levies as a reasonable and democratically accountable measure for investing in the transport solutions that we all need.
16:56
In 2019, all Labour and Tory MSPs, alongside SNP members, voted for the legally binding emissions reduction targets in passing the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. Those targets rightly require urgent and transformational action across all parts of the economy if they are to be met. They will not come about by wishful thinking or crossing our fingers.
In that context, the motion and the Labour amendment are pretty disappointing. Being an Opposition party should not be simply about opposing everything that comes along.
Will the member take an intervention?
Responsible opposition means that, if a party opposes a revenue raising policy, it should say how it will replace that income. If a party calls for new investment in something, it should say where the money will come from.
Will the member take an intervention?
The motion does the opposite of that. It makes a blanket condemnation of the introduction of the workplace parking levy and blithely calls on the Scottish Government to increase support for
“the roll-out of electric vehicles and the infrastructure to support them”
and to make public transport “more efficient and affordable”. Those are all fantastic aspirations that I would support but, equally, they are all without any indication of where the funds would come from to make them happen.
Liz Smith rose—
Maurice Golden rose—
I have absolutely no doubt that we will continue to hear of innovations and investment from the Scottish Government to tackle the climate crisis and promote the use of greener energy. I am equally sure that those will be thought out and funded and that the Scottish Government will continue to balance the books, as the SNP has done every year since taking office.
It really is time for the Conservatives to start making some actual decisions.
Maurice Golden rose—
They cannot keep calling for local authorities to be given more power and then decrying those powers when they are provided. They cannot keep calling for action on climate change and then complaining whenever action is taken. These are serious times that we are living in.
Maurice Golden rose—
I have made it clear that it is up to members whether or not they take interventions. If they are not going to take interventions, do not remain on your feet, shouting the odds. Please can we have a bit of courtesy for other members who are speaking?
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Let me repeat that. It really is time for the Conservatives to start making some actual decisions. They cannot keep calling for local authorities to be given more power and then decrying those powers when they are provided. They cannot keep calling for action on climate change and then complaining when action is taken. These are serious times that we are living in.
There are some areas of public policy left where opposition for opposition’s sake still has a role to play, and the Tories are past masters at that. However, the level of scaremongering and downright nonsense being spouted by the Conservatives around the country on the issue of workplace parking levies is just beyond it. Time and again in this chamber, we have heard Conservative speakers calling for more empowerment of local councils. Giving local authorities the power to introduce a workplace parking levy if they believe that it suits their local situation is doing exactly that. The Scottish Government is not imposing
“taxes to force families in Scotland into giving up their cars.”
Indeed, if such taxes were introduced in Perth and Kinross, it would be the Tories doing the imposing, given that they run the council.
The hypocrisy of the Scottish Tories does not end there. Although nowhere in Scotland is yet imposing a workplace parking levy, one has been introduced by Nottingham City Council—as we have heard several times—which is using legislation that was introduced for England by the Tory Westminster Government.
The hypocrisy is not restricted to the Tories. The Labour amendment says that the workplace parking levy
“will unfairly penalise working people”,
but it was a Labour council that introduced the scheme in Nottingham. As we have heard a number of times, the city has had a workplace parking levy scheme since 2012, and it has among the highest rates of public transport use in the country, with an associated fall of 40 million car miles over the past 15 years.
In Nottingham, the levy has raised about £75 million in revenue, which has supported the expansion of the tram system, the redevelopment of Nottingham station and investment in bus services and electric buses. I do not want to get into the old chicken-and-egg argument with Labour members, but the fact is that Nottingham City Council officials have stated that those schemes would not have happened without the workplace parking levy.
Leicester City Council, in which Labour holds 52 of the 54 seats, is consulting on the introduction of a workplace parking levy to
“fund a radical overhaul and long-term modernisation of the city’s public transport”.
It reckons that the levy could bring in £95 million over 10 years.
You need to conclude, Mr Fairlie.
I will. Do I have a bit of latitude because of what happened earlier?
No. I have given you latitude for that.
Let us acknowledge that a workplace parking levy—
Mr Fairlie, you have to resume your seat.
17:01
It is astonishing that, at a time when the Bank of England is predicting that inflation will go up to 7.25 per cent in April, the SNP still refuses to recognise the consequences for ordinary people of implementing a car tax. The SNP says that it is a levy on the parking provider, but we all know from the legislation that Nottingham City Council used that the cost was passed on to workers. As we have heard from all the SNP back benchers, that is the policy’s primary purpose. It is a devolved policy when it suits the Government but not when it comes to freezing council tax. The Government needs to be consistent about when it thinks that local authorities should be trusted to carry out their own policies. It is total hypocrisy.
No amount of reasoning with SNP ministers in trying to cushion the blow led to exemptions for low-paid workers, single parents and people in our public services who work shifts, including night shifts, such as those in the police and the ambulance service. The SNP gave exemptions for some people but, for some reason, it chose not to exempt anybody else. SNP back benchers voted down every one of my amendments. It could still be a local policy if there was a floor to protect ordinary working people. Even though there is a statutory obligation on the Government to poverty-proof single parents in the anti-poverty plan, the SNP voted down my attempt to exempt single parents from the tax.
The SNP has washed its hands of the consequences of the legislation—one of the most damaging policies in 14 years—on low-income drivers.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will get to John Mason in a minute. He does not seem to think that any people on low incomes own cars, which is deeply disturbing. If Susan Aitken and Anna Richardson are going to consult about such a scheme in Glasgow, I ask the Glasgow MSPs whether they will support it—let us be clear about that.
The policy is designed to stop people using their cars; that is its purpose. The Government is hiding behind the notion that it is up to cash-strapped local authorities to make the decisions, but it knows full well that, even in Glasgow, public transport is not up to the mark.
Let us look at who will be affected: women with childcare responsibilities, for example. In the city that I represent, there are people who work shifts in factories, and they will simply not be able to get to their work without a car. The Government is going to tax them up to £500. If businesses had been asked whether they had some issues with that, perhaps the Government would have got some deserved feedback.
According to the Government’s figures, in households in which total combined income—that means that it is not just one person’s income—is between £20,000 and £25,000, 59 per cent of people travel by car to work. Does the Government know that? Whatever the merits of the workplace parking levy, is now the time to introduce it? I suggest that it is not.
In its motion and its rhetoric, the Government talks about public transport, but there has been no serious investment in transport in 14 years in the west of Scotland. As I have mentioned in the chamber, the mythical Clyde metro is a nice dream and one that I support, but it does not seem to exist. The Government will not even invest in an air link to take traffic off the M8. I am sorry, but I cannot take the Government’s climate change notions seriously, because in 14 years the SNP has done absolutely nothing to take traffic off the M8. We may see the Clyde metro in 30 years—the Evening Times has reported on that—but the SNP has not even blinked over this policy.
Energy prices are rising by 50 per cent, petrol and diesel prices are up and we have the highest food prices on record, all of which disproportionately affect poor people. If it had wanted to, the SNP could have legislated to say that this tax should be borne by the owners and employers, but it did not—we would at least have had something in common had it done so.
The levy will not raise the levels of public money that are needed for investment. Nottingham raised £2 million. That sum will not even touch the sides of a rail link to Glasgow airport.
You need to wind up, Ms McNeill.
The Government is not serious about the scheme and it should rethink it. The SNP will pay the price when ordinary working people see that it has imposed a tax on car drivers.
17:06
I suppose that it is normal at this stage in a debate to say that it has been of high quality, worth while and enlightening. I fear that that is not true today and that we have wasted our afternoon listening to some hyperbolic but also, bizarrely, quite shallow and contorted arguments against legislation that the Parliament has already passed and regulations that have already been passed by committee, about the principle of local decision making, which has already been agreed. From the debate on the original amendment that brought the power into being to the discussions on the development of the policy through to today, I have yet to hear an argument on a point of principle as to why councils should not be allowed to make this decision.
Will the member give way?
I will in a moment.
It is perfectly legitimate to be against the policy and to think that it is a bad idea, either in general or in specific local circumstances, but I hear no argument, as a point of principle, for forbidding councils to make their own decisions on the issue.
I have heard Mr Harvie several times in the past say that one element that could improve Parliament is better post-legislative scrutiny. Does he accept that we are debating a situation in which many councils are choosing not to take up the legislation from 2019 because of the detrimental impact that it will have on so many people who use their cars?
I welcome increased scrutiny. We had scrutiny at committee yesterday, and consistent scrutiny has taken place throughout this process. I hope that Liz Smith is not suggesting that Opposition parties should never be able to bring ideas to the table during the legislative process, pass amendments and introduce changes to the law. I hope that the Conservative Party will seek to use that influence constructively—more constructively than Graham Simpson today, who not only made no serious argument on the point of principle but, like so many Conservatives these days, was reduced to childish name calling. If he is trying to suggest that the Greens are a political party unworthy to be in government, he maybe needs to raise his own game a little.
It might be legitimate to oppose the policy, but it is not necessarily consistent to do so. It is certainly not consistent for the Labour Party to do so, because it was, after all, a Labour-run UK Government that introduced this power south of the border and it was a Labour council in Nottingham that introduced the measure and showed it to be such a practical success—Mark Ruskell set out clearly the degree of success that it has had. That is why Labour councillors in Glasgow and Edinburgh introduced a proposal for the scheme in their manifesto and why Labour councillors in Leicester and Oxford are also looking to develop it—they see its success.
As for the Conservative show of consistency, the Conservatives have—regrettably—been in government in the UK for the past decade or so and they could have scrapped the power at any time they wished, but they chose not to.
There should, of course, be consultation about the levy, including with the unions. That point has been well made. Of course, there was a 12-week consultation during the summer last year. If councils bring forward proposals to implement the scheme, they will also be required to consult at that point. I note that the STUC, quite understandably, chose not to engage in consultation on the technical regulations. I also remind members that some organisations have not been cited at all; their arguments have barely been acknowledged. Friends of the Earth, Edinburgh Napier University, the Confederation of Passenger Transport, Living Streets, WWF Scotland, Sustrans and more have all offered their support to the scheme.
Will the member give way?
I will give way one more time if I have a moment.
Will the minister accept that this is an indiscriminate tax that will impact on the lowest-income families that own a car in this country? That point has been made across the chamber today, but we have not had an answer.
I simply do not accept Miles Briggs’s suggestion that the lowest-income families in this country own cars. The lowest-income families are mostly excluded from car ownership and we should support public transport, as the Government is doing, with more powers for municipal buses; serious investment in rail and public ownership of ScotRail; and free bus travel for under-22s adding to the existing free bus schemes, so that almost 50 per cent of the population will have free use of buses in Scotland, which in itself will make more routes viable. There is also the fair fares review and so on.
Please conclude.
We are also committed to a 20 per cent reduction in car use. In conclusion, I say to Richard Leonard that that is taking Scotland in the right direction. Scotland used to have road traffic reduction targets, but the Labour-Lib Dem coalition scrapped them.
Thank you, minister. I must ask you to conclude.
Were those parties taking Scotland in the right direction then? As in so many other issues, on climate change—
Thank you minister!
—they will the end but not the means.
Thank you.
17:12
Presiding Officer,
“The workplace parking levy is simply a bad solution to an important problem and shouldn’t be given the green light.”
So said Tracy Black, the director of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland. Today, we have heard what she meant by that. By driving ahead with what the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard yesterday is an “undercooked and underprepared” policy, the Scottish Government is implementing what Pat Rafferty, Unite the union’s Scottish secretary, called a
“regressive tax which will hit all public sector workers but in particular the poorest paid.”
As Liz Smith said, the levy will apply even when no public transport is available, so it will hammer night-shift workers in particular. It will also apply when people live in one local authority but commute to another, thus giving them no say in the elections of the authority that would impose the charges.
Paul McLennan told us that the Government is ploughing ahead with the scheme in order to drive behaviour change and to get people out of their cars. However, as the minister conceded yesterday, the Government has no idea what level of charge will be required to drive such behaviour change. As Liz Smith said, the Government has not even bothered to do the basics to guide councils on what might make schemes work, despite Transport Scotland’s having expressly said five months ago that guidance must be provided. The minister conceded yesterday that such guidance does not exist.
Some members have argued that employers might not pass the charges on to employees, but if employers absorb the tax that will divert potential investment in jobs, in productivity and in infrastructure. That is to say nothing of employers being taxed twice for the same space—through the already punishing rates system and again through the car park tax.
The police are already massively underfunded by the Scottish Government but, as we heard last week, they project that a car park tax—which they will need to bring in for safety because police officers need to drive to work—would strip £250,000 from their budget.
Mark Ruskell said that the levy is needed to get people out of their cars, but Liz Cameron of Scottish Chambers of Commerce has made the great point that, if employers do not pass on the cost of the parking levy to employees, the employees have no reason to change their driving habits. The evidence shows, however, that the charge will be passed on.
Mr Kerr needs to understand that workplace parking levies raise millions and millions of pounds for investment in the alternatives that get people out of cars. Regardless of whether the charges are passed on to specific groups, the benefits still exist—we still get a better public transport system, with more alternatives so that people can leave their cars at home. That is what has happened in Nottingham. The same can happen in Edinburgh and Glasgow, so let us get on with it.
Mr Ruskell needs to realise that Nottingham City Council invested in public transport before it brought in the levy. Nottingham City Council’s former leader admitted that the scheme there did not reduce congestion, and conceded that the scheme was hugely unpopular and that there were concerns that businesses would move rather than pay the levy. I am sure that Mr Ruskell would not want that.
The evidence shows that the charge will be passed on. As Neil Bibby said, people already face unbearable hikes in the cost of living. It cannot be right to impose greater costs on working—as Richard Leonard rightly said—or on studying. We have heard that students could face bills of £500 per year to park on campus—to pay for the privilege of accessing their education.
Robert Kilgour of Renaissance Care warned that forcing care workers, 87 per cent of whom are women, out of their cars will put safety at risk. He called the proposed levy an
“unfair tax on our pandemic heroes.”
The Food and Drink Federation has pointed out that bringing in a car park tax will not make much difference to vehicle emissions in its sector, because of the lack of public transport options and the lack of a plan to deal with that aspect.
As Miles Briggs said, the workplace parking levy is a deeply cynical policy from the SNP. The SNP is slashing council budgets by—according to COSLA—£100 million this year, but is now dangling a revenue-raising power for councils, which Glasgow City Council officials have delightedly reported could raise as much as £30 million from the working population of the city. Jim Fairlie even admitted that the policy is about revenue generation to replace cuts.
By pursuing the policy, the Scottish Government is pushing the blame, the pain and the shame on to councils and is ensuring that, yet again, it is our local authorities that get pelters for ameliorating SNP budget cuts. Well, let me be clear: no Conservative-led council will impose the hated car park tax.
We all accept that there is a climate emergency and we all accept that we need to reduce emissions, but the way to do that is to fund councils properly, to fund proper infrastructure and to make public transport more efficient, available and affordable. It is not to impose eye-watering taxes on businesses and employees who are coming out of a pandemic and are in a cost of living crisis.
That is why I will vote for the motion in Graham Simpson’s name.
Air adhart
Business Motions