 Rwyf yn siŵr fynd ag y cyfnod ar y bwysnydd. Rwy'n dweud ar ganlluniau 3279 ym Theo Graham Simpson ar y pargynwyr ystyried. Siŵr ychydig ar ddweud ar broswun cyfan ar gyfer cwylio'r gweithio. Rwy'r rydyn ni'n oes i adrodd y cwyliau ar gyfer cwylio'r cyfnod, gan llwyl Graham Simpson, i ddiwych i gyfle i ddydd i'r iawn i mi anoddu y cyfnod sydd yn ei wneud, mr Simpson. Grafwg, feddodiwyd, dy spinach gydig ar gyflyniadau ysgolwyn i'r byd, a chyfwyrdd yn berynod yn gweithio gydagigol i ddwyliadau Eurill. Mae'r unigau i ddweud â'u cymaint iawn, a ddau'r snendro i ddweud â'u spethau, a o'r pethau i gydaid o'r SNP, sy'n cael eu sefydliad. Mae'n gafodd a'r minister o'r canigau i gyda'r phone i gael i gael ffwrdd i gael amser. Mae'n gwerthol, a'r SNP a'r colegwyr Caelus Gaelig yn選b, a'r cyllidebeth i gwaith, Grwrwm y llunio'r frigw llosodd yn ymdwylliant. Grwrwm y llunio'r frigw llosodd yn ymdwylliant. Rhywodd yn ymdwylliant y teimlo o'r pwysig. Gweithio'r ffordd, mae'r cherdd, mae ffordd yn fwy i gael o'r gweld, o'r cyhoedd o gruller o'r blaen, ondd mae'r cyhoedd. Doni ei wneud oes o blynyddio'r rhaid oieith, ond mae'r cyhoedd o'r rhaid o'r pwysig, ond mae'r cyhoedd o'r blwyddyn o'r llunio, lleol yn gyda'r cymhreibau a'r cymhreibau ymlaenio gwiaeth i gynllun oherwydd rwy'r dryfnodol. Liz Cameron, yng Nghymru, ddweud â'r cwmersio Cymru, glar i'r bobl yn ymlaenio, yn gweithio. Felly hefyd, rydyn ni'n gwneud hynny i ymlaenio. Merdw i'r Minister i gael ei gweithio yn y cyfrifod y bydd yn ei gweithio y bydd yn mynd i'n meddwl ac rydych yn fawr o'r cyfrifod y Lester, y gweithio'r Cyfrifod Ddoddyr Cysbyg, y gweithi'n cyfrifod y Lester hwn yn cyfrifod y cyfrifod y bydd. Felly mae'n mynd i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'r cyfrifod y bydd yn cyfrifod y bydd sy'n cael ei gweithio gyda'r duod nesaf ariyngiau ond nesaf, dysfunction i gweld wilgwyr ar gyfer o gyflagau gwneud honnegol, mae'n ddegyfrau i'r gwirionedd yn dal. Mae'r tach yn dod am unrhyw deil? Mae'r tach naent yn dda pan pwysig yn gyrsio gwybod â hyn o baith gwlygaetheig o hynny o'ch gwybodaeth yw ddwygol ymgylch gyd. Felly y pwysig yn y Llefi bynnag, y cwysig eich tynnu i ddraeth amserach ac mae'r taxa o'r ddraethau yn gwybod i gael gwsigol. Gweithio ddau i ddim yn dweud o ddiffodol fwyaf o'r gweithfawr. Mae'n cael ei ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'r ddigon yn ddweud i gael gwaith yn y gweithfawr. Mae'n gweithio, mewn ddulltau am yr SNP yn ffunio ffons felly y ffrif ymddangos cyfaint a'r ddweud i'r ddydd yn i'r gweithfawr. Mae'n ddulltau am yr ymddangos Cymru a Gwladgo. cannot wait. Though Susan Aiken, with one eye on the council elections, is trying to distance herself temporarily, in the unfortunate event, that Miss Aiken remains as council leader, after May you can expect her to be back on track. It was her own official connectivity officer, Deborah Paton, who excitedly told councillors that a levy could raise as much as £30 million. Ond dwi'n cwestiynau, Geniw Grill Rwth iawn i gael i gael i chi'w limit o dwch chi'n wneud. Gail Rwth yn ni gael i chi? Tom Mason? Fy ydw i'r eu ddiolch yn yw'i shwtur cyflwyn Project Glasgow i gynghwynau ym Yn Gwylio i'r forwardaidiau ac mae'r cyngwysig ar y tro. Gwylio yn gwyntgen i'r ffwrdd? Llywodraeth. Fy mae'r ffwrdd i'r ffool i'r ffwrdd ac mae'n gwybwysig i preferwyr yn ffwrdd ar gyffredin Liz Arlaun. Rhywun wedi cychwyn i'r gwneud â cefnod yn ganddynnu'r ddau'ch meddwl, oherwydd i rydw i ddau'ch cywnghwympgen i'w cael eu gael felly, i ddim yn hyn, mae itsi diwethaf i twyr. Rhywun wedi cael eu cychwyn i ddau'ch meddwl, yn 500 o'ch 500 o'ch 1,000 oed, byd? Doedd yn credu beth. Fyllidwg rydw i'r ddowod, oherwydd i'w interfiadol fyddol, oherwydd yn ni'n rydw i ddewid. I did answer his question yesterday. This is a local power for local authorities to decide upon. I thought the Conservatives believed in localism. Why do they want me to take that power away from them? Graham Simpson. Thank you. Once again she's refused to say what she thinks would be an acceptable limit. It's not clear what the workplace parking tax is meant to achieve. If it's meant to persuade people to use public transport, then it's public transport that needs to improve. But we know the SNP are no good when it comes to running things. When they run the ferries, islanders are left stranded. Now they want to run the trains as well, but can't tell us what they want to do with them, apart from cut services and increased fares. From nat sail to nat rail, it all adds up to a big nat fail. This is what happens when you give greens influence, or even worse, bring them into government. You have a party that wants to take us back to the stone age, with two government ministers. It's like having the flintstones round the cabinet table, with Patrick Harvey and Lorna Slater as Fred and Wilma. Presiding Officer, this tax will hit workers. We've seen that in Nottingham, where more than half of employers affected pass on the cost to their staff. When we try to exempt groups like the police, fibregade, ambulance staff, teachers, shift workers, and those who live or work nowhere near public transport, the SNP and the Greens blocked it. Yesterday, Ms Gilruth refused to do anything about those sectors, and she confirmed to Liam Kerr that the Government has done no modelling on what the affected workplace parking tax might have. It is her rather strange view that you only do modelling once something is already in place. Presiding Officer, you can explain it in your speech minister. Presiding Officer, the SNP and the Greens say they want to get people out of their cars. The way to do that is not to hammer hard-working Scots who are just trying to get on with life. You need to offer a viable alternative. If we want to stop people driving petrol and diesel cars, then the electric vehicle charging network needs to be up to scratch. It isn't. If we want people to use public transport, it has to be there in the first place. It needs to be cheap to use, reliable and frequent. It isn't. The job of government is to help people not to hinder them. The coalition of chaos doesn't get that. We do, and I move the motion in my name. I now call on the minister to speak to a move amendment 3279.2 for around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. I welcome the opportunity today to debate the merits of having provided discretionary powers to local authorities to implement workplace parking licensing schemes and how they support our climate change goals. It is worth saying that, while the technical regulations were agreed to at committee yesterday, the primary legislation was passed in this Parliament over two years ago as part of the Transport Act. 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. We know that the largest share of transport emissions comes from cars, accounting for 39 per cent of Scotland's transport emissions. All parties in this chamber supported the ambitious, legally binding emissions reduction targets in the Scottish Climate Change Act. Now is the time to show that support through action. I agree that the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure and making those improvements to public transport play important roles in our work in decarbonising transport, as the Conservative motion makes mention of. I'll give way to Mr Kerr. Liam Kerr. I'm very grateful. If this is about reducing emissions from cars, why aren't electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles an exempt category in the legislation? Minister. Mr Kerr seems to think that we do one thing in isolation, so we look at electric vehicles in isolation or we look at public transport. We need to look at emissions in the round. This is a hugely important step and it's about empowering our local authorities to do that work. As I mentioned before Mr Kerr interrupted, I do agree that the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure has a role to play in that. On 26 January, we announced a new draft vision for that public charging network, along with plans for £60 million fund that will double the size of the public network over the next few years by leveraging commercial investment. Measures to make public transport more efficient and affordable have also been a priority. I know that Mr Simpson made mention of that in his opening remarks additionally. That's highlighted in our route map to reduce car use, which was published last month. That includes, through the provision of free bus travel under 22s and our fair fairs review, which is hugely important in that regard, which will consider options for change against a background where the costs of car travel are declining and public transport costs are increasing. We are also investing record amounts in active travel, but we also need to get folk out of their cars. This is about behaviour change, Presiding Officer. I'd like to make some progress, thank you. Disincentivisation measures such as the WPL schemes are needed to reach those targets, and as such, the regulations allow local authorities to deploy those powers in the face of the climate emergency. Neglecting them risks our climate change commitments, which members appear willing to sign up to, but not to follow through with action. Giving local authorities power to implement workplace parking licensing schemes is, of course, consistent with councils in England and Wales, who 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 offered by such schemes. We know that Nottingham has among the highest public transport use in the country, with a reduction of 40 million car miles over the past 15 years. The revenue from that scheme has supported the expansion of Nottingham's successful transsystem and the redevelopment and capacity enhancement of its train station, along with investment in bus services. Nottingham's success is leading other councils to follow suit with Oxford unless they are aiming to introduce workplace parking schemes by 2023. I am aware of taking intervention from Mr Kerr, but on that point. Is the minister not aware that Nottingham invested in its public transport before it brought in this levy? There seems to be a suggestion from Mr Kerr that we are not already investing in public transport in Scotland. We are investing in our rail infrastructure, in our bus infrastructure, but we can't do one thing in isolation. Local Labour leaders here in Scotland remain supported of the scheme itself. On 10 February this year, the Deputy Leader of Edinburgh City Council, Cammie Day, said that I remain supported of the scheme, as agreed to in our manifesto. Giving that power to Scottish local authority supports our aim to put more say over local resources in local hands. That is something that Conservatives profess to be in favour of. I would like to make some progress, please, and was welcomed by COSLA and local leaders. But as Councillor Stephen Heddle calls his environment and economy spokesperson noted at the time, I feel that 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. That 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 council's ability to develop effective schemes that are appropriate. We've got to trust our councils to get it right for their local area. It's also worth repeating that these powers were provided by the Parliament on the basis that local authorities can design schemes that reflect their local circumstances. It's not for me and it's not for this Government. Rather, it's important to trust our local authority partners to get it right for their local area. I'm in my last minute. Local authorities must consult locally those who are likely to be impacted by local schemes and undertake impact assessments. Reducing car travel is going to help improve air quality and safety issues and we know that disproportionately those impacts are on the less well-off in our society. As Transform Scotland have noted ahead of this debate, 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 and indeed we know that for people in the lowest income 60 per cent have no access to a car. Of those 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 over two years. I've heard no proposals today to reintroduce new primary legislation to undo that. No vision from the Conservatives, no new ideas, just opposition for opposition's sake. Surely the people of Scotland deserve better than that, Presiding Officer. Minister, could you move your amendment? I did at the start but I moved the amendment. Thank you very much indeed. I now call on Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 3279.1 for around five minutes, Mr Bibby. Thank you Presiding Officer. I welcome this debate brought forward by Graham Simpson. Let's be clear, despite what the minister said that too many people across Scotland simply cannot rely on our public transport system to get to work. That is truer today than when the Transport Act was passed in 2019. There's been a huge contraction in the bus network and in rail services since the pandemic, and services are not returning to pre-pandemic levels. Indeed, just two weeks ago, the Scottish Government made clear that they do not support returning ScotRail services to pre-pandemic levels, at least not now and not any time, soon. People would take the car to work because there's no affordable or convenient alternatives should not be penalised for the failures of this Government. The Government responsible for the failed deal with Avello and the Government that took us into the pandemic was 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 criticised the Conservatives' cuts to universal credit by £20 per week, but 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. Alternatives like integrated multimodal ticketing promised 10 years ago, or a publicly controlled bus network for Strath Clyde in its population of 2.1 million. City regions across England are planning to create control of bus networks if we want to make bus travel more affordable. Why are we not doing that here in Scotland, like in cities like Glasgow? It's very telling that the Government is proposing granting powers for this tax before rolling out the bus regulation powers contained in the same Transport Act. Our society today 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, but we do deal with the climate crisis by transforming public transport. Presiding Officer, 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 the cost, with the lemon cost rising faster than at any time in the past 30 years, we are demanding 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 community tax now. It is wrong for MSPs claiming mildly to 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, but there are people who experience transport poverty in Scotland now, 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 their failure to provide a decent public transport system. We know that there has been no modelling of the impact of this levy. There is no consistency on exemptions, so we face the possibility that healthcare workers will be exempt, but a low-paid cleaner working late at a private employer would not. There has been no engagement at ministerial level with the trade unions since the act was passed. For all those reasons, the levy should be stopped. The concentration of workplaces in city centres drives commuting patterns that place a strain on our cities. We understand the concerns of city councillors about congestion and air quality, especially in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We believe that the Scottish Government should work constructively with Scotland cities to address those issues comprehensively. Action on air quality and congestion is not and must not be a limited to a single ineffective unfair tax. The Conservative motion rightly identifies the need to promote electric vehicles. The Scottish Government and councils have to ensure that charging infrastructure is easy to use, convenient and resilient. The Government can do more. New park and ride facilities, restorers of urban rail services embed better access to public transport in planning guidance. I have written to the minister asking 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. There are better ways to reduce car dependency. We work together to find solutions, but to impose a new tax on working people when the grips of a cost of living crisis solves nothing. I appeal to the Parliament today to support the Labour amendment and let's demand better for Scotland's commuters. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much indeed Mr Bibby. I now call on Beatrice Wissup for in four minutes. Thank you Presiding Officer and Graham Simpson for bringing forward this debate. Scottish Liberal Democrats can't support the SNP Green plans to introduce the workplace parking levy. Since the initial suggestion for these plans we've believed that they are ill-conceived and raised more questions than the Scottish Government has been able to answer, we can now add on top of those the cost of living crisis and all the challenges to business and household budgets that have come from the pandemic. Our concerns around workers in rural, remote and island areas, blocking up our urban roads, squeezing budgets of workers and businesses and workers with unusual or night-time shift patterns. I'd like to take each in turn and outline 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 there's been very little consideration given to the impact on workers. We can't all hop on a tram or train as an alternative to our cars. Will you give way? John Mason. I thank the member for giving way but would she accept that it will be entirely up to Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles and each council to decide if they want this? Beatrice Wishart. There's more areas that are affected than just the islands. I think I said remote and rural areas too. Does the Government believe a teacher, a front-line worker who kept us going through the pandemic should cough up for parking because they arrive early at school and public transport alternatives are regular and thank goodness that the NHS sites are in line to be exempt. Excuse me, Ms Wishart. Could there be 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 this levy either. Residents may now see their streets blocked up with displaced vehicles potentially adding to the daily battle of finding a space outside their home for those without driveways and all this after efforts make our streets spaces for people and pedestrian friendly. For those on restricted incomes this could be extremely tough. A disproportionate burden will be placed on people on low incomes and restricted budgets. We have relied on many of these people over the last two years. The idea has been floated that businesses could cover the cost of parking levees but businesses have also had it hard throughout the pandemic and another financial burden may push some of them from operating to closing their doors permanently. One of those is working irregular hours. This could lead night shift workers to pay up when a day shift worker can catch a bus. Irregular working patterns and late shifts are tricky to staff. The workplace parking levy could make these shift patterns harder to fill another blow to businesses. But we can't do nothing when it comes to tackling emissions and the climate emergency. But this levy needs more answers from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have sensible and workable suggestions to reach our climate goals. Instead of giving local councils the power to drain the income of our workforce 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 make the most profit. The number of bus journeys taken since the SNP came to power has plummeted, so a radical shake-up of Scotland's transport network is required to reverse that. For young people, extending the under-22 bus concession to internal ferries which islanders use in the same way as buses, and introducing a similar rail card model that operates in London and the south-east, allowing everyone to apply for a third-off rail fare cards with those currently entitled to this receiving 50% off encouraging greater use of railways including on the weekend. Where the cars let's make sure they're as sustainable as possible, we'd ensure all new public service vehicles are faced to become electric vehicles and the corresponding EV charging network is, of course, needed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much indeed, Miss Whishill. We now move to the open debate. Time is tight. I'd be grateful if the speakers could stick to their allotted time. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to use the time I have to date to outline the impact the car park tax is going to have on my constituents here in Edinburgh and the wider Lothian region. Because motorists in Edinburgh are set to become the highest taxed in any part of Scotland and, indeed, the UK with this SNP Green councillors in Edinburgh City Council, not only planning to introduce the car park tax, but also a huge roll-out of parking zone permits as well across the capital. The majority of motorists in the capital will very soon be facing the burden of having to pay outside their home and also their place of work. The City of Edinburgh Council has stated that the capital has around 32,500 eligible parking spaces across the city. It estimates that £14 million in revenue can be expected 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, Edinburgh City Council charging individuals and businesses higher and higher charges to increase the revenue stream. All that is at the very time that SNP Green ministers are cutting local council budgets, leaving councils with little option but to use the car park tax to fill this financial void. It is little wonder that Edinburgh City Council, one of the lowest funded councils in Scotland by this SNP 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, pressures around energy costs are seeing bills increase. The car park tax and the parking zone permit changes on average will see families facing additional £630 put in place on their budgets, aftermaze council elections if the SNP and Green councillors are returned in Edinburgh. Also, people outside the capital travelling to work in Edinburgh from growing communities in west-east, Midlothian, the Borders and Fife will have to pay Edinburgh Council this charge, which will have little or no benefit to their own local authorities if they live. As I have outlined, Edinburgh motorists are facing a double whammy of new parking zone costs and the car park tax. The cost of the annual parking permit for example here in Edinburgh already is £202, which is the third highest in the UK, £82 in fact, higher than 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, given councils to implement car parking taxes, is typical of this SNP Green Government. Grant councils the powers and then blame them for putting them in place. It is totally unacceptable. Deputy Presiding Officer, the Scottish Conservatives have been steadfast in our opposition to this 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 priced out of owning a car. The minister wouldn't take my intervention, but there is a clear message that ministers have put forward. Poor people in this country cannot afford to run a car. That is the message that this debate will send. I am happy to take an intervention if they want to. 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 who need to be supported. Myles Briggs, and you must be winding up now. I think that the ministers and SNP and green members need to explain where low-income families will find £428 to pay this tax just to go to work. The cost of living pressures are facing families across Scotland. This is the wrong policy at the wrong time and one that will hit the poorest in our society. The message today is clear. That is time up. I am delighted to talk in this debate this afternoon brought by the Conservative Party. Alok Sharma told the formal opening session of COP26 in Glasgow that it was the last best chance to keep temperature rise limits to 1.5 degrees. He also said that he believed that the conference could launch a decade of ever-increasing ambition and action. He told delegates that rapidly changing climate is sounding the alarm to the world to step up on adaptation, to address loss to 1.5, alive. We need to hit the ground running to develop solutions that we need. That work needs to start today, he said, or we succeed or fail as one. No, I have only got four minutes today. His Scottish Conservatives colleagues turned their back on those words. Transport is the largest source of climate emissions. I have only got four minutes. In car use forms the largest part of those emissions. Let me say right at the start of the speech. No, I am sorry. I have four minutes. I don't think that it's worth anybody's time bobbing up and down. Obviously it must be annoying. Let me say right at the start of my speech. I acknowledge that the on-going improvements in public transport and active travel are necessary, but on their own are insufficient to meet the Scottish climate targets. There is a clear need for traffic demand management. Road transport accounts for 24 per cent of all Scottish emissions, meaning that road transport alone is a larger emitter than any other sector of the economy. To meet the Scottish Government's climate targets, significant reductions in emissions from road transports will be required. Electrification of car fleets will not be sufficient to deliver the necessary carbon reductions, so reductionist road transport will be required in addition to the increased uptake of electric vehicles. The Scottish Government has recognised this in the introduction of its target to reduce car kilometres by 2030. The workplace parking levy can generate significant investment and rebalance the cost of private car use versus public transport use that the minister mentioned earlier on. That is a discretionary power for local authorities. That is a decision, of course, for local elected councils. Members and electors will have the opportunity in May to put forward their options in regards to that and who they think is the best way to take that forward. No, I'm sorry. The Tories are the self-proclaimed party or are they selective in this regard? Local authorities can choose if they want to introduce the levy and when if they do decide that. The choices that we make in this place can drive behavioural change. Introduction of legislation should, of course, be evidence-based. The successful implementation of the workplace parking levy in Nottingham demonstrates the benefits gained for reducing congestion, improving public transport and attracting investment. The city of Nottingham was the first UK city to successfully introduce the levy in 2012 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 has raised £53 million in review. Of course, you can help fund public transport improvements in the city, including a significant extension of the tram network. Those improvements have increased, and this is the key thing, have increased take-up of public transport and have attracted further investment in the city. Of course, there is also scope for local authority to exempt other groups or specify rates or types of spaces, vehicles, times again, in consultation with their communities. In conclusion, 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, it can reduce pollution in towns or cities, it provides an income that can be ring-fen for sustainable transport projects and it can easily accommodate exemptions for blue badge or emergency vehicle parking. The workplace parking levy is a discretionary power for local elected councils. It's their choice. US transportation secretary Boutigieg said, COP26, that every transportation decision is a climate decision and he's right. The workplace parking levy is a right decision for our climate, for our cities and for our future. Thank you very much Mr MacLennan. When a member does not take an intervention that is not an invitation for other members to shout their interventions from a secondary position. I encourage members to behave courteously towards each other, and I call Liz Smith to be a follower of her if you're learning for four minutes. I shall have great pleasure in being courteous. Presiding Officer, when a Government is proposing to introduce a new tax or conferring on local Government the ability to livy that tax, it would be normal practice for that Government to undertake a full economic impact assessment of the proposed measures and to state with clarity what the specific purpose is in terms of bringing in revenue and in determining policy direction. At yesterday's committee meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and I think she was about to respond to this when Graham Simpson was speaking seemed to imply that you don't do that kind of modelling until a scheme is actually in place. I'm sorry, Cabinet Secretary, I'll just let you come back in a minute. I'm sorry, but that is not good practice. I sit on the finance committee in this Parliament and we are time and time again told that modelling is essential before policy introductions. The Cabinet Secretary wants to respond to that. I'm very happy to let her do so. I thank Ms Smith for giving way and thank you too for the promotion. I am but a junior minister but nonetheless on the point that it's not for me in government to model, it's for local authorities to look at their individual local circumstances and model accordingly. The second point is, this was raised by the committee two weeks ago, I wrote to the committee outlining the modelling we undertook pointing to the Nottingham example so I don't think it's fair to say that no modelling was undertaken as Ms Smith has alluded today but it is absolutely a power for local authorities to consider, this isn't for government to direct. Ms Smith. If you go back and read the transcript of yesterday's committee meeting I think you'll find that your response was rather different from what you have just provided just now. Let me deal with this point ahead on because if you read the Transport Scotland consultation document from September last year they state quite rightly that it is for local authorities to decide whether or not to use the power and if they do to shape their proposals according to local circumstances. But, and it is a big but, they also say that supporting regulations and guidance will be necessary to provide national consistency on the scheme. So which is it minister? Autonomy for local authorities to adopt a workplace parking levy should they see fit or a nationally designed scheme overseen by ministers who would be deciding on key elements of the policy, for example on 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 it's supporting. And I think we should also make the point that in Nottingham which has been referred to several times when a similar scheme was introduced the local authority there invested heavily in public transport before the levy was actually introduced. Now there are serious issues about this tax it is non-progressive and it impacts most on the low paid workers and on apprentices as well it will apply I want if you don't mind it will apply even when there is no public transport available so affecting night shift workers for example and there are obviously situations whereby people live in one local authority but commute to another and should they face the levy in the latter they would obviously have no say in the elections of the authority in these charges and we know too what businesses are saying about this issue there was no consultation at the outset and we've had comments spoken about from the FSB and from the chambers of commerce and I think it is incumbent upon the Scottish Government to explain again on what basis did they decide that it was right to confer this power on local government that's the key issue here and as yet that has not been answered and therefore I'm very happy to support the motion in the name of Graham Simpson Thank you very much Richard Leonard to be followed by Jackie Dunbarfer in four minutes Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer and can I remind members of my register of 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 this will make in-work poverty and our unequal society not better but worse so for us this is about who is bearing the cost this is not a progressive tax on the idle rich but a regressive tax on the working poor The Conservative motion also says and I quote the government's priority should be the roll-out of EVs but the Labour perspective on this 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 of course there should but the priority should be to get people out of their cars green or otherwise altogether and onto public transport which is why we say the SNP and to the greens that raising fares closing services halting investment axing railway booking offices slashing jobs on our railways all of which you are currently doing is not taking us in the right direction it is taking us exactly in the wrong direction the minister will tell us that this levy is about free choice for many working people there is no free choice because of the shifts that they work because of where they work there is no public transport alternative it is not a matter of choice we are also told that this is about a discretionary power given to local authorities in the context of their local transport strategy but this is from a government which for 15 hard years has been anti-local authority which has savagely cut local government funding three times the rate of the rest of the public sector that has council tax capped taken police fire wanted to take education into central control that now wants to do the same to social work and to social care so I'm not surprised that there are some local government leaders who are considering availing themselves of these tax-raising powers because they have suffered a decade and more of Tory, yes, of liberal of SNP and now of green cuts to their funding and to their powers and it's no use the first minister tweeting or going into television studios lamenting the cost of living crisis which is already hitting the poorest, the hardest and then coming to this Parliament proposing a measure which will not ease the cost of living crisis it will deepen the cost of living crisis it will make it worse finally the SNP boast about their public investment in the electric vehicle infrastructure but as I've spoken of in parliament before what should be a public good is being turned into a private monopoly 74% of Scotland's public network spend on electric vehicle charging points is going to Swarco a single multinational co-operation headquartered in Austria while local suppliers are being left out in the cold so I will be supporting the clear alternative set out by Labour this afternoon to invest in rail to invest in the buses to invest in active transport to properly invest in local transport strategies based on public not private transport run for passengers not for profit Thank you very much indeed Mr Leonard and I call on Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Mark Ruskell for around 4 minutes Mr Dunbar Transport is the largest source of climate emissions and car use forms the largest part of this in our ambition to reach net zero we must reduce car kilometres by 20% by 2030 we need to promote active travel and improve our public transport networks I'd like to get started if you don't mind time and time again I hear from my Tory and Labour administration colleagues in Aberdeen city council where I'm still a serving councillor that power is centralised to Holyrood and we need more powers coming to our local authorities because they think they know what is best for the city of Aberdeen we now see these powers being given along with the flexibility to tailor the legislation to local circumstances but their Holyrood party colleagues are putting more emphasis on the Scottish Government putting in further exemptions and strings on this legislation and in effect taking that power away the flexibility of the workplace parking levy is one of the benefits of this legislation local authorities are best place to know what works for them and create a scheme that benefits their area empowering local authorities to take ownership of the workplace parking levy is key to ensuring that this legislation fits each local circumstance I said yesterday what fits in Aberdeen may not fit in Edinburgh even between areas in Aberdeen what suits Aberdeen donside may not suit Aberdeen central or Aberdeen south local authorities need to consult with their citizens and businesses to ensure the legislation meets the needs of their workers and undertake the necessary impact assessments and decide whether it fits with their local objectives I'll give way finally Stephen Cair Will Jackie Dunbar be campaigning for car parking taxes in her constituency? Will she be attempting to sell the ridiculous idea to the people who pay their taxes to pay the rules, do the best they can My group in the SNP group in Aberdeen have already said that they will not introduce the car parking levy because that is local democracy my colleague over there is laughing this from the man who right now has a private car parking space in the middle of Aberdeen city centre because he is a councillor he sits there and while his own council staff has to pay for car parking charges so I'm not going to sit there and take lectures from that side of the room Presiding Officer it is right that the Scottish Government has brought a blanket exemption for blue badge holders healthcare workers at NHS premises and parking places at hospices however local authorities will be able to take their local knowledge and provide additional exemptions where required to fit the local circumstances listening to the requirements of the area through consultation and community empowerment we have seen in Nottingham already the only local authority to bring in this legislation in England that they have created a system that works for their area Presiding Officer I'm pleased to see that any revenue brought in from the workplace parking levy will be reinvested into local transport strategies and the promotion of more affordable greener transport choices I'll finish off and I'm sorry I'll probably be a little bit over if you don't mind Mr Simpson in his motion criticises the Scottish Government for their investment in electric vehicle infrastructure at a time where commitments have been made to provide up to £60 million worth to local authorities over the next four years this 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 Presiding Officer with all this in mind I will be supporting the amendment from the minister today Mark Ruskell to be followed in four minutes Presiding Officer I have to say that I am sometimes reminded in these debates of a much-loved 1970s TV character it's not Fred Flintstone it's Mr Ben and of course each episode Mr Ben would choose to be a different character to dress up as and he'd then go on an amazing adventure where he'd learn about new things and so it is because one day he's a lycra-clad cycle activist convening the Parliament's CPG on sustainable transport the next day as we've hearing today he's Mondeo man railing against an imaginary war on the motorist then another day we get Councillor Simpson the earth's wild defender of local government decision making and autonomy but unlike Mr Ben Mr Simpson and his colleagues cannot be all things to everyone we support the rights of cyclists, walkers and wheelers one day you have to follow through and support policies which tackle congestion invest in places and make streets safer and that's what workplace parking levies actually do and Mr Simpson if you champion local decision making as you do from time to time then you have to trust councils to make the judgement about whether workplace parking levies or not as the case might be no and if councils decide that they are part of the solution then you have to trust them to decide what exemption should be put in place and what levels of charge are appropriate for their local areas no what we saw during the committee debate yesterday were some contorted arguments by those who opposed the levy purely out of principle the point for example was made by Mr Simpson that because income from the levy had gone down in nothing over time then this was some sort of abysmal failure well it's precisely the opposite the reason the levy income has gone down is because people are becoming less dependent on their cars and they're finding other ways to get to work including on the trams and the better buses that were funded directly from the levy then of course we had from Mr Simpson an upside down world version of this point that councils might use the levy to fund transport projects that would actually worsen congestion the pitch would be something along the lines of pay your way to longer journey times more air pollution, more congestion I don't see that getting on anyone's council election leaflet workplace parking levies are about investment in solving the chronic health, economic and environmental problems we have in our cities caused by congestion, air pollution and town centre decline and it would be wrong to hold back progress on the introduction of these levies where councils want them we do 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 that cycle of decline of bus services in Scotland means making services more affordable more reliable, more accessible increasing passage in numbers and improving profitability so that routes can be restored once again Nottingham used its levy income to invest heavily in bus and tram reversing the decline and cutting 14 million car miles over the last 15 years Presiding Officer Scotland needs to have its carbon emissions cut by three quarters in just nine years a sobering thought and if members didn't want workplace parking levies in 2019 and they want to delay it again now then they need to say what other form of demand management they will put in place because right now our climate targets are dead in the water unless we see a huge reduction in road traffic emissions it's clear that business as usual will lead us down a road of no return it's time to get behind workplace parking levies as a reasonable, democratically accountable measure to invest in the transport solutions that we all need Thank you Mr Ruskell I now call on Jim Fairlie the final speaker in the open debate for four minutes Mr Fairlie In 2019, as Mark Ruskell has just said all Labour and Tory MSPs alongside the SNP voted for this legally binding emissions reductions target passing the climate emissions reduction bill and these targets rightly require all parts of the economy if they are to be met they won't come about by wishful thinking or crossing our fingers and in that context both this motion and the amendment from Labour are pretty disappointing being an opposition party should not be simply about opposing everything that comes along responsible opposition means that if you oppose a revenue raising policy if you oppose a revenue amazing policy you are going to have to replace that income responsible opposition means that if you call an investment in something you say where the money is going to come from and this motion does the opposite of that it makes a blanket condemnation of the introduction of the workplace parking levy and it goes on blithly to call on the Scottish Government to increase support for the roll-out of electric vehicles as well as the infrastructure to support them and make public transport more efficient and affordable all fantastic aspirations all fantastic aspirations that I would support but equally all without any indication of where the funds would come from to make it happen I've got absolutely no doubt we will continue here innovations and investment from the Scottish Government to tackle the climate crisis and to promote the use of greener energy but I'm equally sure that it will be thought out and funded and they will continue to balance the books as they have done every year since taking office it really is time for the conservatives to start making some actual decisions they can't keep calling for local authorities to be given more power and then decrying those very powers when they're provided they can't keep calling for action on climate change and then complaining whenever action is taken Mr Fairlie can you resume your seat can you resume your seat I've made it clear that it's up to members whether or not they take interventions if they're not going to take interventions do not remain on your feet shouting the odds please a bit of courtesy to other members who are speaking Mr Fairlie it really is time for the conservatives to start making some actual decisions they can't keep calling for local authorities let me repeat this they can't keep calling for local authorities to be given more power and then decrying those powers when they're provided and they can't keep calling for action on climate change and then complaining whenever action is taken because these are serious times that we are living in now there are some areas of public policy left where opposition for opposition's sake that's the role to play and the Tories are past masters at that the level of scaremongering downright nonsense spouted by the conservatives around the country on the issue of workplace parking levies is just beyond it time and time 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 it suits their local situation is doing exactly that there is no imposition by the Scottish Government on taxes to force families in Scotland into giving up their cars indeed if such taxes were introduced in Perth and Cynros it would be the Tories doing the imposing since right now they run the council and the hypocrisy of the Scottish Tories doesn't end there while there is nowhere in Scotland yet imposing a workplace levy it has been brought into not in one council as we have heard several times but it's using legislation for England by the Tory Westminster Government nor is the hypocrisy restricted to the Tories the Labour amendment today describes the workplace parking levy as unfairly penalising working people but it was a Labour council who brought it and in Nottingham the city has had a workplace parking levy scheme since 2012 as we have heard a number of times and it's got amongst the highest public transport use in the country with an associated fall of 40 million car miles over the last 15 years in Nottingham the revenue that was raised from the levy has been around £75 million and has supported the expansion of the tram system the redevelopment of Nottingham station along with investment in services and electric buses I don't want to go into the old chicken and egg argument of Labour members but the fact is that Nottingham's officials have stated that these schemes would not have happened without the workplace parking levy Leicester City Council where Labour hold 52 of the 54 seats are currently consulting on the introduction of workplace parking levy to fund a radical overhaul on the long-term modernisation of the city's public transport they reckon that they can bring in 95 million over 10 years You need to conclude Mr Fairleigh I will do I've given you the latitude for that Mr Fairleigh Mr Fairleigh you're going to have to resume your seat and I call on Pauline McNeill to wind up for Labour around four minutes please It's astonishing at a time where the Bank of England are predicting inflation at 7.25% that the SNP still refused to recognise the consequences to ordinary people of implementing a car tax levy They say it's a levy on the parking provider but we all know that in Nottingham City Council the legislation passed on to workers because of course as we've heard from all the SNP backbenchers that is its primary purpose it's a devolved policy when it suits the government not when they want to freeze council tax you really have to be consistent here about where you really think local authorities should be trusted into their own policies it is total hypocrisy because no amount of reasoning with SNP ministers on trying to cushion the blow by trying to exempt low paid workers single parents those who work in shifts or in fact those who are in public services working night shifts like police and ambulance you did exempt some but for some reason you chose not to exempt anybody else the SNP backbenchers voted down every single one of my amendments it could still be a local policy if indeed you had a floor to protect ordinary working people even though the statutory obligation on the government to poverty proof single parents in the poverty plan voted down an attempt by me to exempt single parents from this tax the SNP have washed their hands of the consequences of this legislation one of the most damaging policies in 14 years on low income drivers and I'll get to John Mason in a minute who doesn't seem to think that there are any low income people who own cars it is deeply disturbing because if Susan Aitken in Glasgow and Anna Richardson are going to consult in Glasgow I say to the Glasgow MSPs in here are you going to support it or are you not let us be clear the policy is designed to stop people using their cars that's its purpose hiding behind an ocean that it's cash strapped authorities will make these decisions knowing full well that even in Glasgow public transport is not up to the mark look at the picture of who is affected women with childcare responsibilities parents with childcare in the city that I represent there are factories with shift workers and they will not simply be able to get to their work without a car and you are going to tax them up to £500 if you'd asked those businesses if they had some issues with that perhaps you might have got some feedback that you deserve by the Government's own figures where the total combined income the combined income of those households that's not just one person between 20,000 and 25,000 travelled by car to work do the Government actually know this whatever the merits of the workplace parking levy is now the time to introduce one I would suggest not the motion and Government rhetoric talk about public transport in the west of Scotland there has been no serious investment in the 14 years I have to say as I have questions in this chamber the mythical Clyde metal is a nice dream and one and I have support but it does not seem to exist the Government won't even invest in an airline to take traffic off the M8 I'm sorry I cannot take your climate change notions seriously in 14 years you've done absolutely nothing to take traffic off the M8 and we'll see the Clyde metal maybe in 30 years 30 years and the evening Times has reported it on this you haven't even blinked over the policy energy prices are rising by 50% petrol's up, diesel prices are up the highest food prices on record disproportionately affecting poor people you could have legislated if you wanted to to say that this tax should have been borne by the owners and by the employers but you didn't if you'd said that the lefi will not raise the levels of public money needed to I mean, look at nottingham raised £2 million that will not touch the sides of even a real lefi to Glasgow you're not serious about this you should rethink this but you'll pay the price for ordinary working people who see that the SNP has opposed attacks on car drivers I now call on Patrick Harvie thank you I suppose it's normal at this stage in a debate to stand up and say that it's been a high quality and a worthwhile and an enlightening debate I fear that that's not true today I fear that we've basically wasted our afternoons listening to some hyperbolic but also bizarrely quite shallow and contorted arguments against legislation this Parliament has already passed against regulations that have already been passed by committee and about the principle of local decision making which has already been agreed in all of this I am yet to hear through the debate on the original amendment that brought this power into being through the discussions on the development of the policy through to today I have yet to hear any argument on a point of principle as to why there should not be a decision local councils are allowed to make I will in a moment, it is perfectly legitimate of course to be against this policy it's a bad idea either in general or in specific local circumstances but I see no argument in point of principle for forbidding councils from making their own decision on this I give way to Liz Smith I'm very grateful to Mr Harvey for giving way and I've heard him several times in the past when he said that one of the elements of this Parliament that could improve it is to have better scrutiny post legislative scrutiny does he accept that what we're debating just now is a situation where many councils are not choosing to take up the legislation from 2019 because of the impact that it will have so detrimentally on so many people who are using their cars Minister I'm certainly happy to welcome increased scrutiny, we had scrutiny at committee yesterday and there's been scrutiny consistently throughout this process I hope that Liz Smith wouldn't be suggesting that Opposition parties should never be able to bring ideas to the table during the legislative process pass amendments and introduce new changes to law I hope that the Conservative party will seek to use that influence constructively more constructively than Graham Simpson because not only was there no serious argument on the point of principle but Graham Simpson, like so many Conservatives these days, was reduced to mere childish name calling and I really think that if he's trying to suggest that the Greens are a political party unworthy to be in government maybe he needs to raise his own game just a little and it may of course be legitimate to take that Opposition but it's not necessarily consistent to take the arguments of Opposition to this policy certainly not consistent for the Labour Party to do so because it was after all a UK Government run by the Labour Party that introduced this power south of the Bora a Labour council in Nottingham which introduced this measure and has shown it so practically successful as Mark Ruskell set out very clearly the degree of success that they've had and that's why Labour councillors in Glasgow put forward a proposal in their manifesto to do that that's why Labour councillors in Edinburgh put forward proposals in their manifesto to do that that's why Labour councils in Leicester and in Oxford are also looking to develop this policy because they see its success and as to the Conservative show of consistency of course they've been regrettably in UK government for a decade or so and could have scrapped this power at any time they wished to do there should of course be consultation about this including with unions and that's a point that's been well made there was of course a 12 week consultation over summer last year and councils if they bring forward proposals to implement this scheme will also be required to consult at that point the STUC I have to note chose quite understandably not to engage in consultation on the technical regulations but I would also remind members that organisations who haven't been cited at all their arguments barely acknowledged from friends of the earth, Napier University CPT, Living Streets, WWF Scotland Sustrans and more have been offering their support I'll give away one more time if I have a moment briefly Miles Briggs Thank you for taking this intervention would he accept though that this is an indiscriminate tax which will impact on the most the lowest income families in this country who own a car as to the point that's been made across the chamber today we haven't heard an answer I simply don't accept Miles Briggs suggestion that the lowest income families in this country own cars the lowest income families are those who are mostly excluded from car ownership and we should be supporting as this government is more powers for municipal buses serious investment in rail public ownership of scot rail free bus travel for under 22s adding to the existing free bus schemes that's nearly 50% of the population who will have free use of buses in Scotland and that itself will make more routes viable the fair fairs review and so on please conclude we are also committed to the 20% reduction of car use and to say to Richard Leonard in conclusion that is taking Scotland in the right direction Scotland used to have road traffic reduction targets and it was the Labour-Lib Dem co-election that scrapped those targets were they taking them in the right direction then as in so many other issues on climate change they will the end but not the means I now call on Liam Kerr to wind up the debate thank you Mr Kerr 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 Scotland we've heard today what she meant by that by driving ahead with what the net zero committee heard yesterday is an undercooked, underprepared policy the Scottish Government is implementing what Pat Rafferty unites Scottish secretary called a regressive tax which will hit all public sector workers but in particular the poorest paid and Liz Smith said it also applies even when there's no public transport available so it particularly hammers night shift workers and it applies where people live in one local authority but commute to another thus giving them no say in the elections of the authority imposing the charges now Paul MacLennan told us why the government is plowing ahead with this scheme to drive behaviour change and get people out of their cars but as the minister conceded yesterday this government has no idea what level of charge is required to drive that behaviour change and as Liz Smith brought up they haven't even bothered to do the basics to guide councils on what might make it work despite Transport Scotland expressly saying five months ago that guidance must be provided and as the minister conceded yesterday it doesn't even exist but some have argued that employers might not pass it on to employees but of course if employers absorb the tax it diverts investment in jobs, in productivity in infrastructure to say nothing of being taxed twice for the same space through the already punishing rate system and again through the car park tax the police are already massively underfunded by the Scottish government but as we heard last week that a car park tax which they need to bring in for safety because police need to drive to their work would strip £250,000 out of their budget Mark Ruskell said this is needed to get people out of cars but Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce made a great point if employers don't pass on the cost of the parking levy to employees the employees have no reason to change their driving habits and the evidence shows however that the charge will be passed on Mr Ruskell Mark Ruskell I understand is that workplace parking levies raised millions and millions of pounds of investment in the alternatives that get people out of cars so whether the charges get passed on specific groups or not those benefits still exist you still get a better public transport system more alternatives for people to leave cars at home that's what's happened in Nottingham the local authority invested in public transport before bringing this in and the former council leader of Nottingham admitted a similar scheme there did not in fact reduce congestion he also conceded the scheme was hugely unpopular and that there were concerns that businesses would move rather than pay the levy I'm sure Mr Ruskell would not want that Presiding Officer the evidence shows the charge will be passed on as Neil Bibby said right at the outset people already face unbearable hikes in their 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 £500 per year to impose greater costs on working as Richard Leonard rightly said students could face £500 per year bills to park on campus to pay for the privilege of accessing their education and Robert Kilgauer of Renaissance Care warned that forcing care workers 87% of which are women out of their cars put safety at risk he called it an unfair tax on our pandemic heroes and the Food and Drink Federation pointed out that bringing in a car park tax would make much difference to vehicle emissions in this sector because of the lack of public transport options and lack of a plan to deal with that aspect but Presiding Officer as Miles Briggs said this is a deeply cynical policy from the SNP the SNP slash council budget by, according to COSLA £100 million this year dangle a revenue raising power for them that Glasgow officials delightedly report could raise as much as 30 million the working population of the city Jim Fairlie even admitted that this is about revenue generation to replace cuts and by doing so the Scottish Government pushes the blame the pain, the shame on to the councils and ensures that it is our local authorities who yet again get peltas for ameliorating SNP budget cuts well let me be clear no Conservative-led council will impose this hated car park tax Presiding Officer we all accept there is a climate emergency we all accept we need to reduce emissions but the way to do that is to fund councils properly it is to fund proper infrastructure it is to make public transport more efficient, available and affordable it is not to impose eye watering taxes on businesses and employees coming out of a pandemic and in a cost of living crisis I shall be voting for the motion in Graham Simpson's name That concludes the debate on workplace parking tax it's now time to move on to the next item of business which is consideration of business motion 03334 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to tomorrow's business any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now and I call on George Adam to move the motion Presiding Officer and moved No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore the question is that motion 03334 be agreed are we all agreed the motion is therefore agreed the next item of business is consideration of business motion 3301 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme and I call on George Adam to move the motion Thank you No member has asked to speak on the motion and the question is that motion 3301 be agreed are we all agreed the motion is therefore agreed the next item of business is consideration of business motion 3308 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on stage 1 timetable for a bill any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now and I call on George Adam to move the motion and moved No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore the question is that motion 3308 be agreed are we all agreed the motion is therefore agreed the next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 3303 on approval of an SSI and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau and moved Thank you and I call on Maurice Golden Thank you The SNP and Greens are asking in this SSI industry to risk their reputations on this new launch date the secrecy and uncertainty around deposit return means that no one can take the Scottish Government seriously the latest delay was announced back in December the popularity Scotland may have released tender documents indicating a 2023 launch prior to that the Scottish Government have not denied the circular economy minister was aware of such documents and I believe Parliament and the public have a right to know if the minister was aware of a possible 2023 launch date a month or more before announcing it and therefore did the minister speak to Parliament there must be transparency and trust for deposit return to work the government needs to provide answers why is the SNP Green Government going for an old fashioned 1990s style system with reverse vending machines instead of a modern 21st century fully digital scheme why happy to take an intervention I thank Maurice Golden for taking the intervention and does he agree that the Government's mishandling of the situation has managed to unite both those who previously supported the scheme and those who were against it the Marine Conservation Society who championed the scheme originally now asks us to vote it down they tell us to ask the Scottish Government to table new ones that include strict for judiciary measures to ensure proposed milestones that are met at no more tax payers money wasted that's a disgrace that they have changed their position because of the Government's mishandling does he agree with that situation Maurice Golden I agree, it's a shambles that we are now in a situation that deposit return scheme that was agreed by this Parliament in 2011 and could have been delivered easily within a decade is still not delivered but it's sad that technology has moved on and this scheme would be a kin would be a kin to providing every person in Scotland with a DVD and a DVD player two years before Netflix was out I'll happily give way if the Prime Minister's content with the time Mark Ruskell the member wants to see deposit return scheme delivered faster why did he and his party vote against it several years ago why did he vote for a delay in the introduction of deposit return scheme back then why have you changed your position Maurice Golden I've never changed my position but I do want questions answered and some of these I'll list them why won't the Government at least guarantee that the reverse mending machines will be built in Scotland is every business affected by DRS fully aware of their business are banks concerned about funding the scheme meaning the Scottish Government funds may be required are companies refusing to bid for circularity Scotland because reputation risk did circularity Scotland award a contract to PwC for £650,000 for producing recommendations only on a return handling fee and was this due to be delivered by you know me consultancy for tens of thousands of pounds less has work on a producer registration system due to be delivered in January this year already being missed will the vast majority of materials collected in the scheme be exported to England and other markets abroad why is there no remelt target to improve glass recycling and are the Scottish Government happy will be local authority job losses in waste management departments as a result of DRS we can deliver the current scheme this year or deliver a truly ambitious one what the Scottish Government are offering is the worst of all worlds I urge any member who believes in tackling climate change and a commitment to transparency and the public sector to vote against these regulations today I call on Lorna Slater our deposit return scheme will increase recycling cut litter and help meet Scotland's climate targets the regulations before you will make a number of changes that are essential to ensuring Scotland's deposit return scheme is a success they set out a new date for full implementation from 16 August 2023 recognising the significant impact that Covid and the EU exit has had on the businesses responsible for delivering DRS additionally they make a number of small but important changes they provide reassurance to on-line retailers providing a take back service clarify the treatment of products such as crawlers and help to prevent fraud and support SEPA to enforce compliance one thing they do not change is the original ambitious scheme targets of 80 per cent in 2024 and 90 per cent in 2025 by passing these regulations members will allow circularity Scotland and the wider industry to get on with the business of implementing this scheme that is essential for the protection of our environment Presiding Officer I ask members to support these regulations vote for the motion and help deliver Scotland's deposit return scheme thank you the next item of business is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 3302, 3304 and 3305 on approval of SSIs 3306 on committee meeting times and 3307 on designation of a lead committee all moved thank you minister the question on these motions will be put at decision time there are eight questions to be put as a result of today's business the first is the amendment 3281.2 in the name of Marie Todd which seeks to amend motion 3281 in the name of Sandesh Gulhane on preventing the collapse of NHS Dentistry in Scotland to be agreed are we all agreed the Parliament is not agreed therefore we will suspend briefly to allow members to access the digital voting system