Seòmar agus comataidhean

I certainly will. I have a concern about timing. I have to say that I am fundamentally opposed to the scheme, but I accept that there are members and parties in the Parliament who do not share that view. However, they might share the view that the timing is wrong. Therefore, the timing is important.

Ms Hyslop and the minister have referred to Glasgow City Council’s view that any scheme could take three years to implement, but I am not sure what that is based on. It seems to be a figure that has been plucked out of thin air. Clearly, implementation would take time, but three years sounds like a long time to me. I have not seen any justification for that timeframe.

Timing is important. The Scottish Retail Consortium’s director, David Lonsdale, has said:

“Workplace parking levies are a charter for extra cost and complexity”.

He went on to say that the schemes will

“see firms taxed twice for the parking places they provide for staff, on top of the business rates already paid on those spaces”,

which goes back to the point that Mr Kerr made. That is crucial, as companies with car parks pay business rates on those spaces. The scheme would be introducing an extra layer of tax on top of what companies already pay.

The Scottish Chambers of Commerce has also come out in opposition. Liz Cameron, the chief executive, said that

“businesses across Scotland will now face a postcode lottery”

as different councils take different decisions. She fears that some

“local authorities ... may now seek to implement this levy as a revenue stream rather than for purely environmental reasons.”

The parent act says that councils must have “a local transport strategy” and that the car park tax must go towards helping with that strategy. That means that the policy does not have to be about reducing motor vehicle travel, and it does not have to be about improving public transport; the levy could be used for absolutely anything in the strategy. That means that it is, or could be, purely a money-making scheme. That is the concern that has been shared by Liz Cameron. It is all rather woolly. It is not, as Mr Ruskell would like, money that could be used to improve public transport. We would all like to see public transport improved, but that is not specifically what the levy would be for. It could be used for absolutely anything in the local transport strategy.

The other point made by David Lonsdale is that the levy is a tax on top of another tax. Firms are already paying once. Why should they pay twice?

Two weeks ago, I raised a question about there not being a cap on what councils could charge. The minister gave the entirely accurate answer that there is no cap, but she has not yet said what level she thinks would be a reasonable charge. I do not know whether the minister wishes to come in at this point—she is speaking, and I am happy to let her in now.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will draw my remarks to a close, convener. I know that you are up against time, but Ms Lennon asked me a direct question, which I will try to address.

I want public transport to be improved for everyone. That should come first. It would encourage people to use public transport, not their cars, I hope.

I have real concern about the regulations. If we accept that the parliamentary numbers appear to mean that the regulations will go through, the minister should try to fix the flaws in them. She should introduce exemptions, which are not in the regulations. She has the power to do that. She also probably ought to set out in guidance what an acceptable level of charge would be.

I do not want the scheme to be introduced at all, but the parliamentary numbers are what they are. Ms Gilruth and Mr Ruskell can get the regulations through. If Ms Gilruth decides to go ahead with the scheme, there are things that she could do to improve it.

This is the wrong time to introduce the scheme. It is an attack on employers and bad for employees, jobs and the recovery from the pandemic. It is the wrong time for businesses and staff. The scheme should be stopped.

I move,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Workplace Parking Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2022 be annulled.

I am not sure whether the member has the 2019 act in front of her. I do, and the minister herself has confirmed that she has the power—if she chooses to use it—to create further exemptions in regulations. Does the member think that the minister should do that?

Oh, come on.

Will the minister give way?

It has been a very full debate, so I do not intend to delay the committee for much longer. I will simply make a couple of points. The first is a point that nobody has really addressed—the minister did not address it when I intervened on her; instead, she wanted to talk about Brexit. This is not the right time to introduce the instrument, because companies and employers are suffering. We need to be building back from the pandemic. The wrong way to do that is to impose extra taxes on employers, which could potentially be passed on to employees—that could well happen.

The matter of exemptions has been raised. The minister has the power to introduce exemptions, but it seems that she does not want to use it. That could cover people such as shift workers. I used to be a shift worker and I had to work in a city centre. There was a concern, particularly for some of my female colleagues, about having to walk through a city centre late at night. What about people who work in an industrial estate at night where there is no public transport? Their employer could well decide to pass on the parking levy to staff.

I will try not to take up too much of the committee’s time but, clearly, committee members are very engaged with the issue. I will take any interventions, including from the minister, if possible. I know that she is joining us remotely but, if she wants to intervene, I will allow her to do so, if I can, because we need a proper debate.

The minister said that the reason why the instrument has only just been developed and brought before Parliament is because of Covid—those were her words. That is exactly the reason why it is wrong to introduce the measure now. Businesses are still recovering from the pandemic. The committee has heard concerns from several organisations, including the Food and Drink Federation Scotland and the Scottish Retail Consortium, and we know that Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and a number of other organisations have concerns. Businesses have made it absolutely clear that this is the wrong time to introduce the measure.

To go back to what Ms Hyslop said, timing is important. Indeed, it is crucial. Businesses are struggling, and they need to recover. The last thing that they need now is an extra tax, and this is an extra tax.

Okay. It would have been useful to hear from the minister what she thinks would be an acceptable level. She seems to think that she has the power to call in schemes—I will take her word for that. If she does have that power and if she were to call in a scheme, what does she think would be an acceptable level per parking space? I will let the minister in again if she wants to respond.

I thank Jackie Dunbar for taking an intervention. She has focused a lot on exemptions. We have established that the minister could make exemptions at a national level—for example, for teachers and police officers, who have to park outside their work. Is that the sort of thing that she would like to see?