Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the draft order. The order sets the reimbursement rate and capped level of funding for the national bus travel concession scheme for older and disabled persons in 2022-23 as well as the reimbursement rate for the national bus travel concession scheme for young persons in the coming financial year. In doing so, it gives effect to an agreement that we reached back in December with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents Scottish bus operators.

The order’s objective is to enable operators to continue to be reimbursed for journeys that are made under both schemes after the expiry of the current reimbursement provisions on 31 March 2022. It specifies their reimbursement rates and the capped level of funding for the older and disabled persons scheme for the next financial year from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. The order is therefore limited to the coming year.

Due to the on-going impact of Covid-19 on bus passenger numbers and the continuing uncertainty about the coming year, it has not been possible to undertake the usual analysis and forecasting that underpin the annual revision of the reimbursement rates and the cap for the older and disabled persons scheme. As a result, the funding cap and reimbursement rate for the scheme have been retained from the previous financial year, with the reimbursement rate in 2022-23 set at 55.9 per cent of the adult single fare and the funding capped at £226.1 million. Those figures are the same as the corresponding figures for 2021-22. We think that, in practice, claims will be substantially less than the capped level, because of the continuing impact of the pandemic on patronage.

For the young persons scheme, the reimbursement rates have also been retained from 2021-22, at 43.6 per cent of the adult single fare for journeys made by passengers aged five to 15 and 81.2 per cent for journeys made by 16 to 21-year-olds. As in 2021-22, a budget cap is not being set for the young persons scheme in 2022-23. We believe that the rates are consistent with the aim set out in the legislation establishing both schemes that bus operators should be no better and no worse off as a result of participating in them. The rates will also provide a welcome degree of stability for bus operators.

As we know, free bus travel enables people to access local services and gain from the health benefits of a more active lifestyle, and it will also help strengthen our response to the climate emergency and support our green recovery by embedding sustainable travel habits in young people. The order provides for those benefits to continue for another year on a basis that is fair to operators and affordable to taxpayers.

I commend the order to the committee, and I am happy to answer any questions that members might have.

I am not sighted on the detail of the specific example that Mr Kerr has highlighted, and I do not know whether officials know any more about it. However, we are happy to come back to him on the specifics. As Mr Kerr will be aware, this is a national scheme, but I do not want to say too much, as I am not aware of the news article or the debate that he cited with regard to Aberdeen City Council. As I have said, I am more than happy to write to him about the specific details of the scheme.

Do you want to come in on that, Tom?

I am happy to do so.

I think that Mr Kerr’s question refers not to the regulations but to the legislation itself. I wonder whether one of the officials can pick up his specific question about perceived double taxing of businesses.

The guidance has not yet been produced; it will be produced once the Scottish statutory instrument is—as, I hope, it will be—passed by the committee. It is dependent on that.

On the figure that Mr Kerr is looking for, no such figure has been identified, at this time. It is for local authorities to carry out the modelling and, essentially, to look at their own local circumstances. It is not for me to direct them—the power is for local authorities to use and depends on their local circumstances.

I will defer to officials on that. If the motion to annul was agreed to and the instrument was looked at again, the primary legislation would still be on the statute books, and it could be overridden only by another form of primary legislation. I will pass to officials to clarify that technical point.

Absolutely.

Having listened to the debate, I come back to the point that most of the issues that have been raised were decided by the Parliament during the passage of the 2019 act some three years ago or relate to the details of specific schemes that are subject to local authorities’ discretion, empowerment and local accountability as part of the requirement in the act to set out schemes—[Inaudible.]—and carry out impact assessments.

There has been discussion about the regulations introducing a cap on charges but, if the motion to annul is agreed to, I cannot make such a change; it has to be done through primary legislation. Members need to understand that. We need to be very clear that we are voting on the regulations, and I cannot unpick them to introduce a cap. As I have said, that would have to be done via primary legislation.

The regulations give local authorities the powers that they have already been provided with under the 2019 act. That is hugely important. As we have heard in members’ speeches and in the question-and-answer session, that power already exists in England and Wales. The Labour administration in Nottingham and the Conservative Government have been perfectly happy for the power to exist and operate. Likewise, we have heard that certain local authorities in England and Wales have not chosen to use it.

However, that is in the gift of local authorities; it is not for politicians or ministers like me to direct these things. The power was given by the Parliament on the basis that local authorities would be able to design schemes to reflect local circumstances. There are robust requirements on local authorities to consult the people who are likely to be impacted by local schemes as well as requirements on those authorities to undertake impact assessments. Fundamentally, however, this is about trusting our local authorities—

I do not think that I said that work has not started. That is not accurate. We plan to publish guidance in the first half of 2022, if the Parliament does not annul the regulations. In our guidance for local authorities, we will outline the themes that emerged from the public consultation, which was undertaken to inform the regulations and guidance. That will include issues that were outwith the scope of the regulations but that local authorities might want to look at in their consultations. The guidance will also include reference to the support that is already available to local authorities in existing guidance on best practice in their consultations.

Before I took an intervention from Mr Kerr, I mentioned the climate change emergency, and it is important that we link back to that. All the parties in the Parliament supported the ambitious and legally binding emissions reduction targets in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. Workplace parking licensing schemes have the potential to encourage the use of more sustainable travel while also raising revenue that will be used to improve public and sustainable transport. That is the key point that Mark Ruskell made. Now is the time to support the climate change legislation with real actions and not just words.

We have heard much today about the Nottingham example. I again make the point that it is the only scheme in operation in the United Kingdom. I point to the positive outcomes that were outlined in evidence to the committee’s predecessor by Nottingham City Council, which is a Labour-run council. Of course, Nottingham has among the highest public transport use in the country, and there has been an associated fall of 40 million car miles over the past 15 years. The revenue from the workplace parking levy has supported the expansion of Nottingham’s successful tram system, which I mentioned. Nottingham has also made grants available to support employers to implement sustainable transport measures such as cycle parking. Again, that is a hugely significant investment.

I am pleased that the Government has introduced the regulations so that local authorities in Scotland can make use of the new discretionary powers that the Parliament provided to them. I do not support Graham Simpson’s motion to annul the regulations, which are technical and necessary in order for workplace parking licensing schemes to be implemented effectively and transparently. I urge Mr Simpson to withdraw his motion. If he does not do so, I urge members of the committee to oppose it.

No—I would like to make some progress.

As for the concerns that have been raised about the impacts on different types of businesses and workers, they will be for local authorities to consider, consult on and assess. The 2019 act gives authorities the power to shape their own schemes by specifying, for example, the time of day when they will apply. That is actually quite important. Monica Lennon referred to vulnerable workers, and we need to look at what types of workers are working at which times of day—for example, women who might be working in night-time industries, hospitality and so on—geographical boundaries and local exemptions to ensure that councils have the flexibility and discretion to support positive outcomes. As the committee heard two weeks ago in my response to Ms Hyslop, two or more local authorities might want to work together to create their own scheme.

We have skirted around the climate change emergency today, but I do want to come back to it.