 Y Llywyddyn chaf ar y cyfathol yng Nghymru i gynhyrchu'r FF22, sy'n cyfrifio'r cyfathol yng Nghymru. Rwy'n mynd i gyd. Aelod yn fwy o'r cyfathol ym mhwysgol a'r ddull i'r cyfrifio'r cyffathol. Aelod, weithio'r cyffathol yng nghymddol, aelod yn gwybod â'r cyfathol, aelod yn gwybod â'r cyfrifio'r cyffathol. Aelod, yn gwybod â'r cyffathol, yn gwybod â'r cyffathol. Itho'r cyffathol, will be taken in private. Item agenda 2 is consideration of evidence on the workplace parking licensing Scotland regulations 2022. Those regulations are subject to the negative procedure. This means that they will become law unless within 40 days a motion to annul has been laid. We had a short evidence session on the regulations with the Minister of Transport and officials on 8 February. On 9 February, a motion to annul this instrument was lodged by Graham Simpson MSP, who is joining us this morning. Before we have the formal debate on the motion, I thought it would be helpful to have a second and final evidence session with the Minister and officials in relation to this instrument. This will give us further opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification in relation to the instrument. I therefore welcome Jenny Gilruth, MSP Minister for Transport, who is joining us remotely. I also welcome officials who are joining us remotely, Heather Cowan, Elizabeth Holly and Elise McIntyre. Thank you all for joining the committee today. I put on record the committee's thanks to the organisations who provided submissions to inform this session. Please note that some of those submissions were sent to the committee after publication of the meeting papers, and we will be publishing those submissions later this week. I would now like to invite the minister to make some brief opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from members. Minister, I thank you for the opportunity to make another opening statement today to provide further evidence in support of the workplace parking licence in Scotland regulations 2022 and to debate the motion to annul this SSI made by Graham Simpson. As previously outlined during my evidence to the committee just two weeks ago, the power for local authorities to implement workplace parking licensing schemes was provided by Parliament under the 2019 Transport Act, following an extensive evidence session by the predecessor committee to this one, and further regulations and guidance are now necessary in order for local authorities to implement those schemes. The act itself reflects that the power rests with local authorities to design schemes based on local circumstances, including on setting the licensing charge. The act also reflects the key themes of accountability and transparency. It specifies what a local authority must set out as part of any proposed workplace parking levy scheme, and that includes the licence charge payable, which is also specified per workplace parking space per annum. It places robust requirements on local authorities to set out the scheme proposal, including the licence charge and to carry out consultation and impact assessment before making any scheme. The act includes provisions for either the local authority or Scottish ministers to initiate an independent examination of a proposed scheme if they choose to consider it appropriate. 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 transport and sustainable transport too. It also supports our commitment to reduce car kilometres' travel by 20 per cent by 2030 as part of our climate change goals, as supported by all parties at the time of the climate change act. councils in England and Wales have had those powers for over a decade, during which time Conservative Government has been content to retain the power for councils in England to bring forward those types of schemes. We have seen how workplace parking licensing can support climate change goals in knotting in, which I discussed two weeks ago, which is among the highest public transport use in the country, with an associated fall of 40 million car miles over the past 15 years. Other English cities, including Leicester and Oxford, are also developing their own local schemes. First, Mr Simpson's motion today is attempting to deny Scottish councils the same powers that are provided by his Westminster colleagues to English councils. Secondly, it is at odds with his previous statement that, and I quote, we believe that decisions should be taken as locally as possible and that power should lie with politicians elected as locally as possible. But thirdly, nothing in the regulations before committee today has any impact on the level of licensing charge—an issue that was raised, I know, last week during the previous evidence session two weeks ago, rather. The decision to put that in the hands of local authorities following local consultation and assessment of impact was made by Parliament in 2019 in primary legislation and it can't be changed by the regulations today. The motion to annul today is misplaced and consistent and it is at odds with policy, which has been already agreed by Parliament some three years ago now. If councils choose to develop their own workplace parking licensing schemes as part of their transport strategies to reduce congestion, air pollution and invest in sustainable transport, then that is a choice for which they are accountable, not me as a minister and not a Scottish Government. I urge the committee today to give them the appropriate regulatory tools to support that decision. My officials and I are happy to answer any further questions that the committee may have on the regulations today. Thank you. Thank you very much minister. We will now move to questions and let me start with a procedural question for you. If the motion to annul were to be passed by the committee today, would that simply mean that you could take the draft instrument away, reflect on the important concerns raised by stakeholders such as the Chamber of Commerce, CBI, SRC and the Food and Drink Federation, address the defects that are inherent in the instrument and then bring it back at a later date, improved and corrected? I thank you for the question. I am going to default to officials on this. I don't think that if we took the motion to annul, if it passed today and what you suggested was looked at again, I think that the primary legislation is still on statute books and it could only be overridden by another form of primary legislation. I will pass to officials to clarify on that technical point. Minister, it is Heather Cowan here to confirm what Ms Garuth has set out. The regulation that is before competing today provides the framework for local authorities to implement workplace parking levy licensing schemes, but there is nothing in that regulation pertaining to the motion to annul and the points raised by the committee. It would have to go back to primary legislation. The absence of the regulation today would still provide local authorities with the power to implement workplace parking levy schemes. It just wouldn't have the additional framework in terms of the transparency consultation requirements on local authorities that are in the regulation before committee today. Thank you for that response. I think that we will come back to that later in the questions, because I think that there is some further clarification required in relation to that response. Before we do that, let me bring in Fiona Hyslop. Thank you very much and good morning. It is helpful if the minister could clarify the difference between what the act contains, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament some years ago, and the SSI that is before us. Clearly, if there are defects in the instrument, that would have been alerted to us. I think that the main concern seems to be on timing issues, but it would be helpful if the minister could identify if anything has been brought to the Government's attention in terms of any actual technical aspects of it. The instrument in front of us today is primarily about the mechanism and specifying quite a lot of safeguards for communities in terms of the consultation process, the setting out of the charges and the point about a report to which you mentioned, so that you can expand on that a bit. I think that it is also important to, if you can give any indication as to whether every single local authority in Scotland that we expect to be using this or any indication of whether it is just the two major cities that has previously, back in 2017, been the case from their own manifestos from different parties in those two cities. Finally, on consultation, clearly I am very familiar with my constituency line between Glasgow and Edinburgh of commuters travelling to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and clearly now we have city region deals that have transport aspects to it, particularly for commuters, including park and ride, particularly from the outskirts of Edinburgh into Edinburgh. Surely any consultation, for example, by the city of Edinburgh, should consider the impact on Midlothian, Eastlothian, Westlothian, but clearly the spend might be best placed in park and ride for bus lanes into those cities because clearly Edinburgh has a very good transport system that can always be improved. Similarly, going into Glasgow, I am campaigning for a park and ride from Whitburn into both cities as well, so they are the type of things that people are looking for, but perhaps in expanding your thoughts, your understanding, if you can touch on some of those matters. I am quite happy for you to bring in some of the officials in differentiating between what is in the act and what is in the SSI. It is always open for people to bring back SSIs, but I think that the key issue seems to be about timing, unless something else has been brought to your attention. Thank you. There is quite a lot to unpack there, Mrs Lopslyner, questioning. First of all, the legislation passed in 2019 and I discussed that in my response to you. I might bring some of the officials in on the specifics of the SSI, but my understanding is that the SSI will give local authorities the power to enact the legislation. However, it is also worth pointing out in terms of timing that that is not going to happen overnight. I think that Glasgow suggested that it could take up to three years to enact a scheme, so it is not going to happen quickly. To speak to some of the criticisms around about businesses at this moment in time, I think that that provides a level of safeguarding, because we do not know where we are going to be in three years' time. However, in terms of the recovery, it is important that we have a sustainable recovery and one that also takes cognisance of our climate change obligations. We must not shy away from that in response to recovering from the pandemic. Mrs Lopslyner asked a number of questions, a line of questioning, around the role of the reporter. I think that the act does set out that either the local authority proposing the workplace parking scheme or the Scottish ministers might appoint a reporter to conduct an examination into the scheme proposal. It is not my view that it would be routine for ministers to do that, given that it might delay schemes unnecessarily. Of course, a local authority would not be able to proceed until examination of any scheme would be complete, so it would slow the process down. However, it is important nonetheless to say that ministers can initiate an examination by appointing a reporter. For example, if there was a concern—obviously, last week, two weeks ago, apologies—we had a conversation about the level of charging being set. For example, if there was a feeling in the local community that the level of charge was felt to be too high, that could be addressed by the reporter in the examination of the scheme. It is important to say that safeguard has been built into how it will operate. The regulations set out a process for the examination to be conducted, and those are really, essentially, heavily based around the regulations governing the examination process for LEZ. We also would anticipate the reporter to be sourced from the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals. I think that I mentioned that, if not in my letter, there is no evidence to the committee two weeks ago now. I am trying to make sure that I cover every point that the committee has raised on consultation. To raise an important point, it is absolutely essential to the local requirements for local authorities to be responsible and accountable for those schemes. There is an obligation and responsibility for local authorities to consult with their local community on how their scheme would operate. To the example that she gave about park and ride schemes and the impact of city region deals, I think that that absolutely requires local authorities to look up and to look out at the way in which their scheme would impact on different local authority areas. Equally to tie their local transport strategy plans to what they want to get out of the scheme itself. Fundamentally, the workplace parking scheme gives local authorities additional revenue to invest in their own local transport strategy. That is hugely important. It empowers local authorities. I hope that the committee will vote to support the regulations today, but I appreciate that the committee will have a debate about that in the minutes yet to come. I do not know whether officials want to come in on the specifics. Apologies on the technical detail. Is there any official wanting to come in on that? My colleague Elizabeth Hawley was good to come in, but she is not off mute yet. Thank you. I am happy to come in on some of the question about what is in the act versus what is in the SSI. Going back to what the minister said, I will run through quickly the key elements in the SSI. The act sets out a robust requirement for local authorities proposing schemes to consult people who are likely to be impacted by the scheme. The SSI places further detail in the framework of that, for example setting out where the consultation has to be published and how people can respond to the consultation. It is very much a level of technical detail to ensure that transparency and to ensure that the intention of the act in terms of that consultation is carried out. Moving on to examination, the act sets out that there is an option for ministers or the local authority to initiate that examination and the regulations set out the exact process by which that examination would be initiated. How the reporter who was conducting that examination would consider the representations that had been made and make the decision on how to conduct that examination. The act sets out that the liability sits with the employer who is providing parking and net premises and that the regulations expand out on that in situations where, for example, several employers are sharing one car park. That was discussed by the predecessor committee to this one in 2019 at stage 2 of the consideration of the transport bill. The SSI also sets out that there is a process for appealing licensing decisions and that there is an appeals to the sheriff. Again, the act sets out that there should be an appeals process, but the SSI actually sets out how that appeals process is conducted by summary application to the sheriff. The act sets out that there will be enforcement by way of penalty charge. The regulation sets out exactly what has to be in that penalty charge notice and how those are issued. Some of the time constraints to make sure that that process is fair and again a route of appeal. Excuse me to the first tribunal and then on to the tribunal if appropriate. Finally, the act sets out that any revenue from the WPL scheme after operational costs must be spent in support of the objective set out in the local transport strategy. The SSI sort of supports that by placing accounting requirements on local authorities to make sure that those accounts are published in a transparent and fair way. I hope that that hunts the questions. I also note that having reviewed the submission to do the committee and that we are published with committee papers, the concerns are primarily on decisions that were in the act. We didn't see any concerns on the instrument before the committee today. Thank you. That is very comprehensive in the history and context. Indeed, the issue is not necessarily the SSI with some people, but it is the original act, which was passed some time ago. That was quite comprehensive, so I am quite happy to pass back over to the convener. Thank you very much. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Jackie Dunbar. Thank you convener. I will just fire very quick questions. First of all, what does the modelling show is the minimum level of charge that will drive the behaviour change that you want on public transport? I think that I have answered the question, convener, in my response to the committee. If I can direct Mr Kerr to that letter about modelling, as the letter states on the issue of behaviour change based on whether employers choose to pass on the charged employees, we looked at Nottingham City Council in terms of the modelling of behaviour change. I think that it also previously made a submission to the historic RIC committee as part of that committee's evidence gathering at the time of the stage 2 amendments. In its evidence, Nottingham Council showed that the supply of liable workplace parking places decreased by 17.5 per cent prior to licensing being introduced as employers sought to limit their liability, with a more gradual reduction in the number of workplace parking places provided by employers in its introduction. Nottingham City Council also gave evidence showing that a number of major employers moved into or consolidated to city-central locations with good public transport accessibility. To the broader point about Mr Kerr's question, because I appreciate that he asked this two weeks ago now, it is difficult to model a scheme that has not yet been in existence. We do not yet have one of those schemes in existence in Scotland, so that the best way in which we can learn as a Government, or local authorities rather, can learn is from modelling what has happened in Nottingham City Council. I think that the content of the letter covers some of the specifics to Mr Kerr's questions. I also note that, in one of the submissions that the committee has received ahead of today—I think that it was from Transform Scotland—there are some statistics around the need for traffic demand management. I do not know whether that goes to explain or give a bit more context to the rationale behind the policy itself and the increase in terms of the costs associated with public transport in comparison to driving and the need, therefore, to encourage that behaviour change. I do not know whether officials want to see more on the specifics of modelling. Again, I think that Mr Kerr will appreciate—sorry, I can see him jacking, but I cannot hear what he is saying—I think that Mr Kerr will appreciate it. I was not here when the legislation, the 2019 act, was debated. I may want to bring in officials on the modelling point again, but it was addressed in my letter to the committee just weeks ago. Well, perhaps—so, thank you for that full answer. I am just looking for a figure. What is the figure at the minimum level of charge that will drive the behaviour change? So, perhaps, if that is in the letter, the minister can give me that as we move on. The second question, Transport Scotland. In this final business and regulatory impact assessment, Transport Scotland said that the Scottish Government needs to produce guidance and regulations to ensure national consistency and the success of this scheme. Has that guidance been produced, minister? Nope. To your specific point, the guidance has not yet been produced. It will be produced when this SSI has been passed, hopefully, by this committee, so it is dependent on this being passed by committee today, specifically on that. On the figure itself, there is no figure identified at this moment in time. It is absolutely for local authorities to carry out that modelling and to look at really essentially their own local circumstances. It is not for me to direct them. This is a power for local authorities to use, and it is dependent on their own local circumstances. Although Transport Scotland, of course, would like ministerial direction, of course, as I have just read out in my question. Minister, there is something genuinely—I do not understand this and I just wonder if you can help me with this—business has already paid tax on parking spaces, I believe, through the business rates scheme. Has the Government taken advice as to whether it would be legally competent to double-tax the same piece of property under two separate taxes? Double-tax? I think that Mr Kerr's point here does not refer to the regulations, I think that it refers to the legislation itself. Can I ask an official to pick up the specifics on his point about double-taxing or perceived double-taxing of businesses in that respect? Minister, I am happy to come in and say that that would be part of local authorities' impact assessment requirements under the act. They are required to take into account the impact on those that would be affected, which would include taking into account the impact on businesses within the scheme parameters that they have set out. I have no further questions at this stage, convener. Okay. Just to clarify that second point, the impact assessment is a slightly different response to the question from Mr Kerr, which was about whether the Scottish Government has sought legal advice on the potential impact of double-taxation. It is not so much a consultation or impact assessment, but it is a question on whether the Scottish Government sought legal advice on that particular issue. I do not know whether officials would like to come in on that specific point. I am not aware of any issues with regard to that. The act passed Parliament and the SI has been before the legislative committee, and there were no issues raised at the DPRC committee with regard to the SI and its drafting. Okay. Thank you very much. Let me call Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Monica Lennon. Thank you and good morning, minister. If you do not mind, I would like to ask a few questions around the process of exemptions. We have had responses from people in regard to their businesses about how they feel that they should be exempt from that. Can I ask you, minister, just for clarification and maybe some explanation as well, to give examples of what the exemptions could be, who would be responsible to lay out those exemptions, and what the process of putting the exemptions in place would be? Specificly, as we have discussed the workplace parking levy as a discretionary power for local authorities, it will be for the local council to decide whether they wish to use that power and the shape of the proposals that they will judge to be appropriate for their local circumstances. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to implement locally their own WPL, and they will also require to undertake a public consultation, which we touched upon in response to another member's question this morning. That public consultation will also require to look at an impact assessment before implementing any scheme, which is hugely important. Local authorities might also use their revenues, which will be generated from the levy itself to support policies in their local transport strategy. To the specifics of Mr Mbar's question about exemptions, the only national exemptions that exist in the regulations at this moment in time are the blue badge holders for healthier workers at NHS premises and parking places at hospices. There are three different types of exemptions that exist at national level. Any other consideration around exemptions would be for a local authority to look at and to consider subject to their local environment, which is really important in terms of empowering local authorities to take decisions that best meet and suit their local area. We know, for example—we discussed this in some detail two weeks ago now—that people on lower incomes are less likely to travel by car, and any revenue raised by the fund itself will be used to support local transport strategies that are touched upon. However, that too can support greener transport choices and more affordable public transport than lower-income households often rely on. That is hugely important point. When we talk about exemptions for healthier workers, for example, in parking places at hospices, it is not to curtail local authorities from looking wider. They will be able to exempt any groups or premises based on their individual circumstances. That is really important. It is also a decision for local authorities on the timing of the scheme itself, as I touched on it, and I know that Edinburgh City's mobility plan sets out the income from the workplace parking levee that is going to be used to deliver public transport improvements by 2025. However, those schemes are not going to happen overnight, but it is absolutely really important that local authorities have the responsibility and the choice in how they take forward any relevant exemptions for their local communities that they serve. I thank you very much for your answer, but to you, convener. Thank you very much. Jackie, let me bring in Monica Lennon to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister and your officials. Minister, I think that we all recognise that you were only appointed to your posts last month, and it must be very challenging to take on a brand new brief, so I think that we all want to cheer you on in that regard because the issues that you are grappling with are so important, but it is apparent to me and possibly others that, in terms of some of the questions that we have asked you last week, and this week I have read your letter to the committee, you are struggling to give us some basic answers and are relying on your officials who appreciate our working hard behind the scenes. It feels that we are at a point in time where it is really, really important that this is right in terms of where we are right now. We have a cost of living crisis, we have a public in Scotland who absolutely get that we have a climate emergency, but they want to be taken on a journey that is fair and that is just. So can I ask what discussions you have had in your new position with the STUC because they represent over half a million workers in Scotland? They are saying in the last week or so that Scotland's public transport is not up to scratch. They are very concerned about the cost of living crisis and that this workplace parking levy will penalise workers. These are genuine concerns by trade unions who want climate action to happen, who want better public transport. What discussions have you had directly with the STUC about their concerns and what reassurance can you give workers today that this is not going to push them further into poverty and this deep cost of living crisis? I thank Ms Lennon for her question and her sympathy in some of the intonation. Nonetheless, we are talking about regulations here. We are not talking about the legislation that happened back in 2019. I will bring in officials around what consultation was carried out with unions back in 2019, but I have stayed in the last two weeks. I have had no conversations with the STUC on the specific regulations. I have met with the unions on a number of other issues, but she may understand, but not on the specifics of those regulations. I would imagine, and I will wait for officials to confirm that my predecessor would have met with the unions absolutely on those points. I think that she makes really relevant points around cost of living and on public transport. It is important to remember, though, that the liability for the charge itself—the workplace parking levy—sits with employers, not with employees. It is a matter of employers whether or not they pass that cost on to employees, so it is not a tax on workers' per se. We have spoken this morning about local authorities' responsibilities to design schemes that suit their own local circumstances. As Ms Lennon highlighted, we know that those in lower-income households are less likely to have access to a private car and that those living in more deprived areas are disproportionately affected by the negative impacts of car use, including from pollution and road danger. Our aim absolutely is to move away from the status quo of car dominance that already negatively impacts loads on lower incomes. Supporting that just transition has to be really key to our route map to reducing car kilometres in Scotland by 20 per cent by 2030. That includes other interventions to ensure a just transition. Ms Lennon spoke about some of the challenges on public transport. One of the things that we are looking at in Government at the moment, as she may be aware of, is the fair fairs review, which I think is really important. It looks at joining up journeys on different loads of public transport. We have also introduced, as she may be aware, three weeks ago, the free bus travel for under-22s. Again, a hugely important policy welcomes by the trade unions and the national roll-out programme of free cycles for those who cannot afford them additionally. I mentioned the exemptions previously, but I hope that that gives Ms Lennon some reassurance about the importance of protecting poorer workers from some of the challenges that she spoke to. On the specifics, she raised a question about the STUC. I have given her my answer on that, but I may bring officials in who may have dates and details of when previous ministers met with the STUC on this per se. I was asking about the discussions that you have had with the STUC in the last month or so, because, as other colleagues have hinted at, it is important that we get that right. We have an opportunity to take a beat to pause and to make sure that we are getting that right, because this is a workplace park in Levy. It will directly affect workers. You are trying to change the behaviour of workers, so the fact that you have not discussed it with the STUC is a point of concern to me. I know from other work that you are doing, which I welcome. You are trying to look at making public transport safer for women, in particular. What is your message today to women who do not feel safe using trains or cannot get on a bus or train, for example, when I live in Hamilton, the X1 bus that is expressed service to Glasgow, which people felt really safe using? That is gone. I spoke to your predecessor about that. The bus has not been brought back by anyone, by first bus, by SPT, by South Lanarkshire Council, by the Scottish Government. People in my area might be able to swallow a workplace park in Levy if they had a bus that they could get on. We have all got examples, Minister. What is your message to people who are worried that they do not feel safe, that there is not a bus to get on and that they will have to take the car anyway and possibly bear the cost of that because their employer may well pass it on, which is experience in eight out of 10 cases, I believe, in nottingham, that example that you are so keen on. People are worried, Minister. What is your response? They do not want to know about the difference between the legislation and the regulations. They want to know you are the brand-new transport minister. What are you doing to listen to people's genuinely held concerns? I thank Ms Lennon for her supplementary question. She raises a number of points. I will try to unpack all of them. There is quite a lot here, convener. Just to go back to our original point about impact assessments that she mentioned, it is really a power for local authorities to make local decisions dependent on their area. It is not for me to direct. It is not for me to interrupt. It is about local accountability, and I think that that is really important. I think that Ms Lennon was a councillor prior to her election to the Parliament. I think that it is important that we empower our local authorities. We give them greater opportunities to raise revenue so that they can better take cognisance of their local population and invest in public transport in their local area. She raises, for example, the issue around women's safety. There is a broader challenge here, which is not specific to the SSI. I discussed it in the chamber in the statement on Operator Flash Resort, which would have been the last week of term, and our plans to consult with women and women's organisations about their safety on public transport. I think that that is hugely important. It is not just about trains, buses or places that women are waiting for when they are going to get on public transport. It is about their journeys to public transport and about a much broader conversation that we need to have about women's safety. However, I do not want to narrowly siphon it off to the SSI. I am not necessarily sure that the SSI is the place in which to have the conversation. The SSI is the detail that gives local authorities the power to enact legislation that was passed three years ago. It is historic legislation. The reason that it has not been taken forward for now is because of Covid. The pandemic has slowed many things down in government, as the SNP will understand, and therefore we are now passing the SSI, which will empower local authorities to take that forward. He mentioned a concern about the SCUC. I have met all the rail unions, and I have to say to her that, on broader issues that we discussed, this was not raised with me. I spent a long time on the last Thursday of term—in fact, nearly three hours—with the unions, specifically talking about rail, but also about some of the wider challenges on women's safety. The Workplace, Park and Levy was not raised with me, so I want to give her that reassurance of understanding that, one, I have actually made quite a lot of time to meet with the unions, and two, it is not being raised with me. On the third wider point, I asked officials on this around whether or not ministers previously engaged with unions. That is a fair enough point, but I may bring in Heather on that. I suspect that it is historical to the 2019 legislation, but I am happy to be corrected on that point. I am happy to come in and confirm that ministers also met rail unions regularly during 2019 and during the act. At that point, they would have engaged with the unions according to the agenda set. If WPL was on the agenda, it would have been engaged with the STUC. There was also exchange of ministerial letters, so STUC and other unions wrote to ministers and ministers responded. There was also the predecessor committee's evidence session at stage 2 on WPL, which enabled unions and other stakeholders to offer evidence and perspectives on WPL. In general, as we have set out, a lot of the stakeholder comment has either been on the act and so was therefore heard and considered as part of the evidence in the process of the passage of the bill through the committee and through Parliament at stage 3, or on the specific individual schemes of local authorities. Therefore, a dependent, for example, on the geography set by local authorities for WPL. Actually, there are no specific scheme details on which to engage unions or other stakeholders on, because that will be the responsibility of a local authority as part of setting out the scheme and undertaking that consultation and impact assessment. Okay, Monica, thank you very much. Let me bring in Mark Ruskell to be followed by Natalie Donne. Let me just say that we've got a lot of ground to cover, so can we have brief questions and answers, please? Mark Ruskell, over to you. I'll do my best, convener. I appreciate that we're going back to a lot of the more fundamental arguments around the scheme that we're already debated back in 2019. Can I ask you, minister, about the funding and where that funding will go? Will it be in addition to the funding that councils have already allocated for public transport schemes to make people's journeys to work easier? There will be some people looking at this thinking, well, I'm going to have to potentially pay more money to get to work. How will my travel to work actually be easier as a result of this? Can I actually see concrete additional benefits, acceleration of existing programmes and schemes that councils are considering, or maybe even bringing in new initiatives like park and rides or better public transport facilities to make it easier for people, rather than people just feeling that, well, this is just another tax, another thing that I'm going to have to pay out? Mark Ruskell might have raised his point, convener, in the last session, but just to confirm, yes, this is additional funding for local authorities. The funds that they raised from the workplace parking levy will be used to implement their own local transport strategies. He talked about some examples there. In the last conversation that we had maybe two weeks ago now, I cited some examples of what has been done in Nottingham. The Nottingham scheme is, I think, less than £2 a day. The city has generated around £75 million of new revenue since the scheme started back in 2012, supporting the expansion, of course, of Nottingham's successful transport system and the redevelopment and enhancement of Nottingham station, which, I think, I mentioned two weeks ago now. That point is really important, though, that any money raised is going back into the local area. If people are contributing to the scheme, it is being spent locally on improving public transport or transport priorities for the local authority. Fundamentally, the local authority is accountable to its local population, but, equally, people are paying into the scheme that will allow for greater development and enhancement, arguably, of the local transport infrastructure. Thanks for that further reassurance. The other point that I wanted to raise was in your letter to the committee. You made the point that what we might see is employers starting to shift away from out-of-town locations back into city centres again. Clearly, our city centres have been gutted because of Covid and economic downturn, and that is affecting small businesses as well. Is there evidence for that? Are there promising signs of Nottingham or other places that we might see a revitalisation of our town centres, which would benefit everybody, particularly small businesses, as a result of a workplace park in Levy? Would it add another lever to encourage that regeneration of our high streets, which we are desperately needing at the moment? Absolutely. It is really important that we encourage that regeneration of our high streets. We know that the pandemic has had a huge impact on high streets, which, even prior to the pandemic, had arguably been decimated by the increase in online shopping, for example. It is hugely important that those schemes help to drive that inward investment. To some of Mr Ruskell's points about challenges for smaller businesses, there is an opportunity for local authorities to introduce their own exemptions, which I mentioned in my response to Jackie Dunbar. For example, businesses in Nottingham with 10 or fewer parking places have exempted, so smaller businesses are not hit to the same extent because they have less employees. It is important to take recognition of that, because in Scotland we have a larger number of SMEs in other parts of the UK. However, it is absolutely essential to driving the revitalisation of our high streets and to encouraging people to walk to work, to cycle to work, if they are able to do so safely. Those are broader plans that we have in Government to drive that sustainable recovery to allow our high streets to recover, but to encourage that modal shift. We have to get folk out of their cars. I referenced that in my response to Mr Kerr. There are some quick stats on the Transport Scotland briefing, which looks at the cost of driving in comparison to public transport over the costs of the past 10 years, for example, and the gap for those from poorer backgrounds, for example, being most adversely affected by that widening impact in the cost of living, for example, and average wages, but also looking at the costs of public transport itself. We, in Government, have a challenge here. I spoke to Ms Lennon on how we might be able to do that through the fair fairs review, which I think is hugely important. Equally, if driving is becoming much more affordable and we need to get folk out of their cars, I think that I am prepared to be correct on that. Transport is for 40 per cent of all emissions in Scotland, where the largest polluter is at work in terms of a part of Government. We need to take direct action on that, and that is one way in which Government can empower local authorities to do that, but also to raise revenue to invest locally in their own transport priorities. Equally, as Mr Ruskell noted, we need to drive that revitalisation and regeneration of Scotland's high streets. From what I have heard today, in order for local authorities to carry that out in the best way possible, those regulations should be passed. We have talked a lot about empowering local authorities to carry out and create a system that best works for their communities. In terms of that, the empowerment is with local authorities. Does the minister agree that that is a wholly positive move? Can you elaborate more on the COSLA position? I understand that COSLA is broadly supportive of that. Given that we are talking about local authorities and empowering local authorities, there has not been much discussion this morning on what they actually think. Are you able to provide any information on support and principle from local authorities and leaders—perhaps cross-party leaders—across the different local authority areas, please? The only theme that the committee will know is in Nottingham. It was introduced by a Labour council and approved by a Labour Government, but councils in England and Wales have the power to bring in their own workplace parking levy schemes. That gives Scottish councils the exact same power. It is about giving an equivalent of power to local authorities in Scotland that they do not have with their English and Welsh counterparts, but that is quite important. Conservatives in the UK Government have had over a decade to withdraw the power, but they have not done so. That speaks volumes to the importance of empowering local authorities, which I am sure that every member on the committee would agree with. The COSLA position has been very supportive of the workplace parking levy back in 2019. Cairns are Heady at the time, commenting that they strongly supported the principle of the workplace parking levy as a discretionary power whereby local authorities are granted the maximum amount of flexibility to shape a scheme that supports their wider transport and climate change strategies. I think that some of the tension that we have heard at the committee this week and two weeks ago is around that flexibility. I am not here as minister to dictate to local authorities. They have the power now, if the SSI passes today, to enact their own workplace parking levy and take forward their own schemes, their own consultation and their own impact assessments, depending on their local area. It is not for me to direct that. I will be perfectly honest. There may be local authorities who say that that would not work in our rural setting, for example, but, for other local authorities, the scheme will work well. We have the Knossingham example to draw up on. It is important that we do it. It is the only scheme in existence in the UK at this moment in time. Therefore, it is important that the Government learns from that, but it is right to say that the scheme has been very supported by COSLA and to our point about empowering local authorities. It is, in my view, a really positive move to give local authorities another opportunity by which to raise revenue to invest in their own local transport priorities. Thanks, minister. Can I just ask on the last point that I made in terms of support from local authorities themselves? Have you had discussions with the local authorities themselves in Scotland? I have not had direct discussions with local authorities on this. I think that consultation with local authorities would have taken place in the 2019 act and, potentially, by my predecessor, but, again, I will default to officials on the specifics of consultation with local authorities directly. I thank the minister for your response, and I will pass back to the convener. Did one of the officials want to supplement the minister's response? Yes, it was on the point of consultation with local authorities. I was going to come in to confirm that we convened a working group to inform the development of the regulations, and that had local authority representation on it, including from Edinburgh and from COSLA and from Scots. So there has been local authority consultation specifically on the development of the regulation that is before the committee today. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much for that. Liam Kerr has a brief supplemental to be followed, finally, by Graham Simpson. Liam, please. Thank you, convener. Yes, it is just a brief supplemental, minister, because Mark Ruskell asked about modelling, and I'm not sure we got an answer involving modelling, so I'd like to ask again what modelling has been done by the Scottish Government on the situation where employees refuse to use the staff car park perhaps to avoid the cost and instead decant on to the surrounding streets. Does the modelling show that that's a possibility? To what extent, if so, and what is the impact on local residents if that happens? What does the modelling show? On the specifics of decanting on to surrounding areas, this would be a matter for local authorities themselves who have to consult in their local area and look at a range of different opportunities and impact assessment, for example, in terms of the parking availability. It's not for me to direct that, but modelling is absolutely for local authorities. Mr Kerr raised this two-week score, and I gave him the detail in the letter, and I cited it again in response to him earlier on around about nottingham. It is the only scheme, and I know that Lenin mentioned it as well. It is the only scheme in existence in the UK. The modelling that we have largely learned from as a Government has been based on the nottingham example, but it is for local authorities absolutely to look at that point. We don't want, as Mr Kerr alludes to, folk decanting on to the surrounding areas and parking in different parts to try to avoid the charge. We don't want that to happen, but we also have to trust local authorities. My question to Mr Kerr would be, if we trust local authorities in England and Wales to do this, why are we not trusting them in Scotland? It's important to have an equivalence of opportunities for local authorities across the United Kingdom. We should be trusting our local authorities to do this, making them take a nice of their own local circumstances, but empowering them to raise fundamentally extra revenue, which can be invested back into the local community to the benefit of the people that they serve. That's not the question, minister, to put to me. We're not talking about trusting local authorities. We're talking about the Scottish Government bringing in a scheme and apparently failing to model what the impact of that scheme would be. I think that you've just confirmed that the modelling has not been done, unless you're confirming that the modelling has been done at Scottish Government level. I'll hand back to convener. I don't agree that we have not modelled it, but we can't model something that doesn't exist. You either have or you haven't. Mr Kerr, no, no, no, sorry, convener. How can we model something that doesn't yet exist? We've got 32 different local authorities involved. You just said that it did exist. We could attempt to have 32 different approaches to this. It's not for me to tell them all how to do it. This is a power for local authorities. The only way in which we can learn as a government from other parts of the United Kingdom is by looking at the not-in-example. I laid that out in my response to Mr Kerr previously, but, additionally, in the letter that I sent him. We can't model in advance of the schemes having taken place. We have to trust our local authority partners to do this and to get it right by their local community. Thanks, convener. Just one quick question and possibly a follow-up depending on the answer. I feel that we've had a full debate already, but the debate is yet to come. Can you confirm that, in the 2019 act, you have powers to set out further exemptions beyond what is there already? You could do that in regulations. Yes, I will be prepared to be connected by officials, but I think that I do have those powers. My follow-up would be, why have you chosen not to use them and set out further exemptions? To answer Mr Simpson's question, I responded to Mr Dunbar on this point. The only three exemptions that exist at this moment in time are with regard to health workers, people visiting hospices and those with a blue badge. They are the three national exemptions. Any other exemptions are, again, for a local authority to decide upon. It's got to be for local authorities to look at their local circumstances and decide best where those exemptions should dress. It's not for me as the Government Minister to direct, but he is correct, convener, to say that there is provision, I think, within the legislation, although officials can come in on this if they wish to do so, for us to look again at what those national exemptions might be. At this moment in time, those are the only three that we are considering. I'm aware of the only three, and you've just completely contradicted yourself by saying that you said that it was up to local councils to set out exemptions, and then you agreed with me that you could do it in regulations, which you can, but you've chosen not to do it. There is a power, but we have not chosen to do that yet. Therefore, it's for local authorities to consider it. I don't know if Mr Simpson's suggestion is that we look at further exemptions. We'll come to that in the debate. Okay, I look forward to it. Graham, thank you very much. That brings us to the end of questions. We now move on to the next agenda item, which is consideration of motion 03166, which is asking the committee to agree to recommend that SSI 2022-4, the workplace parking licensing Scotland regulations 2022 be annulled. I will shortly invite Graham Simpson MSP to speak to and move the motion that the workplace parking licensing Scotland regulations 2022 be annulled. I will then invite any committee members who wish to contribute to the debate to do so. I will then invite the minister to respond to the debate. Finally, I will invite Graham Simpson MSP to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw his motion. Graham, could you please move and speak to the motion? Thank you, convener, and I will move the motion. I will try not to take up too much of the committee's time, but the members of the committee are clearly very engaged in this. I should say that I will take any interventions that are made, including if it's possible, from the minister. I know that she's joining us remotely, but if there's a way, if she wants to intervene, I'm able to let her. I will do that because we need a proper debate. The minister said earlier that the reason that this instrument has only just been developed and has come before Parliament was because of Covid. She said that, and those were her words. That is exactly the reason why it is wrong to bring this forward right now, because businesses are still recovering from the pandemic. The committee has heard from several organisations, the Food and Drink Federation Scotland, the Scottish Retail Consortium. We know that Scottish Chambers of Commerce has concerns about this, as do the CBI and a number of other organisations, but businesses have made it absolutely clear that this is the wrong time to bring this forward. To go back to what Ms Hyslop said earlier, timing is important. It is very important. It's absolutely crucial. Businesses are struggling, they need to recover, and the last thing that they need now is an extra tax, and that is an extra tax. Is the timing that you have a problem with, or are you fundamentally opposed to the scheme that was approved by the Parliament in an actor three years ago? On timing, do you recognise what the minister has said? It won't be implemented by any scheme immediately. It would take time to do that, and it should be given an indication that it could be a number of years. Therefore, arguing about a position of point in time as of now would actually stop local authorities doing anything for years to come. Can you respond to that, please? I certainly will, and thank you, Ms Hyslop. On the timing matter, I do have a concern about the timing. I am fundamentally opposed to the scheme, but I accept that there are members and there are parties in this Parliament that do not share that view, but they may share the view that the timing is wrong. Timing is important. Ms Hyslop and the minister refer to the view of Glasgow City Council that any scheme could take three years to implement. I am not sure what that is based on. I seem to me to be just a figure plucked out of thin air. It clearly would take some time, but three years sounds like a long time to me. I have not seen any justification for that time frame. Timing is very important. The Scottish retail consortium director David Lonsdale has said that workplace parking levies are a charter for extra cost and complexity. It will see firms tax twice. That goes back to the point that Mr Kerr made for any parking places that he provides for staff on top of the business rates that are already paid on those spaces. That is crucial because companies with car parks pay business rates on those spaces. That scheme would be introducing an extra layer of tax on top of what they already pay. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce has also come out in opposition. Liz Cameron, the chief executive, said that businesses across Scotland could face a postcode lottery, as councils take different decisions. She fears that some councils may seek to implement the levy as a revenue stream rather than purely environmental reasons. If we have a look at what is in the parent act, it says that councils must have a local transport strategy and the car park tax must go towards helping with that strategy. That means that it does not have to be about reducing motor vehicle travel. It does not have to be about improving public transport. It could be used for absolutely anything that is in that strategy. That means that it could be purely a money-making scheme. That is the concern that Liz Cameron has made. It is all rather woolly, so it is not as Mr Ruskell would like. Money could be used for improving public transport. We would all like to see public transport improved, but that is not specifically what this levy would be for. It could be used for absolutely anything in that local transport strategy. The other point that David Lonsdale made is that it is a tax on top of another tax. Firms are already paying once, so why should they pay twice? I raised the question two weeks ago about there not being a cap on what councils could charge. The minister gave the entirely accurate answer that there is not one. She has not yet said what level she thinks would be a reasonable charge. I do not know where she wants in there. She is speaking. I am happy to let the minister in if she wants to come in. I am happy to come in, but briefly. We did cover this, Mr Simpson, two weeks ago. I also responded in the letter to the committee not setting a limit for local authorities to decide on the limit for their local area. It is not for me to direct that this is a power for local authorities. It would have been useful to hear from the minister what she thinks would be an acceptable level and whether she thinks that she has the power to call in schemes. I will take her word for that. If she does have that power and she were to call in a scheme, what would she think would be an acceptable level per parking space? I will let her in again if she wants to come in. I am not giving Mr Simpson a number, convener. This is not for me to direct. It is for local authorities to consider. I gave the example of Nottingham, the only scheme in existence in the United Kingdom, where I think that the charge is roundabout £2 per day. However, I am not here to give a number because that would be a need overriding local authorities and their local democratic accountability. I think that that is a really important point about the regulations that we are dealing with today. This is about empowering local authorities nor about me directing them. Far from the minister saying that she will be prepared to, or could, call in schemes and could direct them on what charges should be, she is clearly not prepared to do that. She mentions Nottingham, a very interesting example. Nottingham is about to increase what it charges companies. The reason for that is—probably the minister and Mr Ruskell certainly would rejoice at this—that the money that was taken in by Nottingham's scheme has gone down because fewer people need parking spaces and Mr Ruskell would think that that was a good thing. However, in order to fill that gap, they are increasing the charges. That leads you to the conclusion that in Nottingham, so lauded by some people around this table, it is actually a money-making scheme. If the minister wants to press ahead with this, she should at least fix the cap element of this instrument. I am sure that she could do that. Exemptions have been mentioned, convener. The police federation gave some very strong comments about this. They fear that Callum Steel, their general secretary, fears that this could be passed on to rank-and-file police officers. If it were not to be passed on to them, it could hit overstretched budgets for the police. Unions have come out against it. Keir Greenaway, senior organiser for GMB Scotland, said that the lowest-paid workers would suffer at the worst possible time with the rising cost of living. He is absolutely right. Going back to Nottingham, a point that I made two weeks ago, more than half of the employers in Nottingham have passed on this charge. It is set to be nearly £500 a year per parking space on to their staff, and some of them will be low-paid. That is a regressive tax. You have been very honest that you are in principle opposed to Workplace Park in Levy, but if Parliament was to vote to annul the motion to create a better space for this to be looked at again and for improvements to be made, what type of things would you like the minister to consider? Who would you like her to speak to and what practical differences would you like to see happen? I know from a shared time in local government that you and I both want to empower local government, but we want to empower people across Scotland to be able to make the best choices for them. For example, would you want the minister to look at everyone aboard campaign, which wants to extend free public transport by bus to everyone under the age of 26, including people on low income and on benefits? Are those the kind of measures that you think we should be looking at as a Parliament so that perhaps there can be a place for a workplace parking levy in the future? Yes, I will draw my remarks to a close convener. I know that you are up against time, but Ms Lennon has asked me a direct point, which I will try to address. I want to see public transport improved for everyone. I think that that is what should come first, and that will encourage people to use public transport and not use their cars, hopefully. That is what should be coming first. My real concern about this, if we accept the parliamentary numbers appear to be that this will go through, I think that what the minister should do is try to fix the flaws in this. She should be looking at exemptions that are not there. She has the power to do that. She really ought to be setting out, probably in guidance, what she thinks an acceptable level of charge should be. I do not want to see this coming in at all, but if the parliamentary numbers are what they are, Ms Gilruth and Mr Ruskell can get this through. If Ms Gilruth decides to go ahead with it, then there are things that she could do to improve it. She could do that. Convener, if I just draw my remarks to a close, I think that this is the wrong time. It is an attack on employers. It is bad for employees. It is bad for jobs. It is bad for the recovery from the pandemic. It is the wrong time. It is the wrong time for businesses. It is the wrong time for staff. It should be stopped. I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. Mr Simpson, I now call Fiona Hyslop to be followed by Liam Kerr. Fiona, please. Thank you very much. Graham Simpson might not be aware, but we are currently conducting in this committee an enquiry into local government and how it can work with partners to deliver net zero targets. Clearly, reduction in car use is part of tackling that. I suppose that it comes down to looking at what is facing us today in this SSI. It is not about revisiting the scheme. I think that Graham Simpson has been very upfront that he does not want a scheme at all. I think that the issues that have come up are about timing. Again, the issue is whether it is coming in as of this year in terms of the actual charges or the preparation time. Primarily, what will the SSI do to make sure that some of the issues that have been raised today would get addressed, but they would not get addressed by the minister. They would get addressed by the local authority, and that is the choice. Do we empower local authorities or do we not? Yes, indeed. I do. The minister has confirmed that she has the power in regulations if she chose to create further exemptions. Do you think that she should do that? I think that the local authorities in putting forward their scheme can also use their powers that they have in the act to decide what exemptions they might need. Each city might be different, for example. I do think that realistically, we are looking at the cities, we are not looking at rural areas. In terms of the other aspects of a cat, the local authorities could have that cat themselves. Indeed, they would need to do that as part of the report that they would put together in terms of their impact. Similarly, on the modelling, they would need to identify what could and could not be done in terms of displacement. I do not know if other members have tried parking in Edinburgh, in the city centre of Edinburgh, for any length of time. Permits are there for local residents. They are not there for those who are seeking to come in to use their car parking space. The reality is that time has changed for both our major cities in terms of their transport issues. That is what it comes down to, in terms of the ability for local authorities to make their own decisions, knowing full well, because I know from the city centre city leaders that they are very involved with the local businesses about what they might need or not need. I very much welcome the funding that has been given by the Scottish Government to city centres to help in terms of the rehabilitation and recovery of city centres in our current position, so they are getting supported. I think that, in terms of looking at the scheme, there are systems that are referred to Naughtyam. They wanted less people to use their cars. I do not think that it is surprising that there are fewer cars going into Naughtyam, because that is part of what the scheme was. It was a bit odd to say that that was a problem for the scheme. In terms of the funding, it is absolutely clear that we have to have more funding in public transport. Yes, we need more national funding and others might want to see what efforts they made in terms of the budget that we have just gone through in terms of transportation increases, but again, that can be used locally. I think that that impact consultation and the report that local authorities will have to do by the SSI Produce will address a lot of the concerns that have been raised. It is worth commenting on the Conservatives' 2021 Scottish Parliament manifesto when they said that councils should lead post-Covid reviews of changed travel patterns in their area and be encouraged to create more low-traffic neighbourhoods—bus and bike roads, school streets and local emission zones—where they would be beneficial. That is the number of the matter. Do we trust local authorities or do we not? Mr Simpson, back in the 2017 local government manifesto, said that we need to empower councils and, given the renewed sense of meaning and purpose, they can and must be the engines of growth. We believe that decisions should be taken as locally as possible and that power should lie with politicians elected as locally as possible. I think that the SSI comes down and we trust local authorities to make their decisions. I do not expect every local authority to be implementing that. It is clear that the two major cities are interested in that, but, even before they get to implement that, they have to produce a report, they have to do an impact assessment and, at any time, they or, indeed, the minister can appoint a report to examine those propositions. On that, convener, I think that I will end, but I thank everyone for giving an airing to what is a very important subject. Two years ago, the Parliament passed the Transport Bill, which contained the ability to levy a car park tax. I and my colleagues tried to amend that to make it what we saw as more equitable, to exempt people like the police, care workers, shift workers and to ensure that those not living or working close to public transport would not be caught. As Graham Simpson rightly pointed out, the then government was not with us on either those amendments or the final form of the bill, and it passed. We are now presented with the regulations in Mr Simpson's motion to annul. I have listened carefully to the evidence given by the Transport Minister to the committee recently. I have read her letter to us last week. I have listened to her answers this morning. The thing that comes out for me on this is the lack of detail that is still persisting in this scheme to the potential detriment of so many people. I find that particularly concerning, given that, as I mentioned earlier, Transport Scotland specifically acknowledged the requirement for guidance only five months ago, guidance that the minister acknowledges does not exist. We have heard previously that there is no cap on what might be charged, and nothing would prevent employers from passing the cost on to employees. Indeed, the evidence that we have received in this committee suggests that they will. The Government wants to drive behaviour change, but it could not give me a figure as to what they think might achieve that behaviour change. I listened to the response by the minister to Mr Simpson's remarks. The minister can call in an unreasonable charge, but has no idea or is not prepared to set out what she believes is an unreasonable charge. What is the definition of that? We also heard that no modelling has been done on the impact of decanting on to surrounding streets, nor on the impact, as my friend Ms Lennon pointed out, on lower-paid workers. There have been no clear answers as to how the funds generated will benefit rural areas and or those areas in which people paying live but do not work, so councils commuting from a rural town into a city, for example. It appears known as checked whether it is legally competent to tax the same piece of land twice under two separate heads. Those regulations do not address the significant concerns, nor many of the others that we have heard today. The lack of progress on addressing those issues is highly concerning. Fiona Hyslop rightly makes the point about timing. I have no doubt that doing this work was going to be challenging during the pandemic, but that is why I cannot understand the urgency of forcing what appears to me an undercooked, underprepared scheme through in such a hurry. The committee has heard about the DRS scheme at some length, and that has been significantly delayed due to the lack of detail and the lack of rigor underlying it. Some of the committee will welcome, as Graham Simpson said, the car park tax, but no one welcomes bad legislation. I say to the committee to heed the convener's question right at the start, which I am afraid I did not hear a proper answer to. What happens if we vote today for the motion to annul? I think that voting for the motion to annul today allows the minister to take this project away and have a rethink, address the significant concerns that she has heard about, find answers to the questions that the committee has posed and come back with a scheme that actually works. It does not risk destroying businesses and does not penalise the lowest-paid workers. My view, convener, is that we should get it right rather than getting it rushed, and those are the reasons, convener, that I shall vote for the motion to annul this morning. Thank you very much. Liam, Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Monica Lennon. Jackie, over to you, please. Thank you, convener. I was not here two years ago when the act was passed. I was in Stalama Servant Council or Aberdeen City Council. How exciting it is that local authorities are going to be empowered with more decision making. It is something that everybody cross-party has been welcoming for years. It is disappointing today to hear—that is what I am hearing anyway—that some people think that maybe local government should not have the empowerment to make the choices that affects those within their local communities. We have heard a lot today. I thank the minister for answering my questions on exemptions, because that was something that I was keen to hear. The exemptions would be a case-by-case situation. For me, that even breaks it down into local authorities. If there is an exemption case brought forward in my constituency of Aberdeen Donside, it might not be appropriate to have that exemption in Aberdeen Central or Aberdeen South, because there are different areas within even the local authorities. I thank Jackie Deyma for taking the intervention. You have focused a lot on exemptions. We have established that the minister could make exemptions on a national level. For example, teachers and police officers who often have to park outside their work. Is that the sort of thing that you would like to see? Sorry, but would you like the minister to make that decision? Would you like the minister to make that sort of move? I think that it is up to the local authorities to make that decision. I am still a servant councillor to me, so I am still going to say that. You said about the police in my patch, in my ward and in my constituency. We have a police station in Maastricht that does not have a car park in the roundabout area. To say that the police or teachers would be pushed out is not necessarily the case. I think that it is down to local authorities to make those decisions. They are the ones that should be empowered to make the decision of whether it is appropriate for their area. What would be the impact that would be? The minister said in her question in answering that Nottingham has exempted 10 parking spaces or less. Our local authorities would have that ability to choose, so that would protect the small businesses. Our councillors are very good at listening to the local communities. They are the coalface of politics and they are the ones that hear when things are right or when things are being done wrong. I have every single faith in them moving forward to be able to make those decisions. I will not be a servant councillor by the time that this comes in, but I think that it is the right thing to do. I think that we have to have this discussion in the context of the pandemic and Covid recovery, the cost-elevant crisis and just to show that Parliament and Government are listening to the people who will be directly affected. For me, the starting point is that the workers that this levy is aimed at. We do not know how many workers would pick up the cost of this, but we can see that the business is also very concerned. Graham Simpson has been very honest that he is opposed to No Matter What. I would like to get to a place where I could support a workplace park and levy in the future, but I agree with the points that have been made that we have to demonstrate that public transport is affordable, accessible and safe for everyone who needs to use it. I am concerned that those discussions have not been taking place in recent weeks with the STUC and workers on the front line. I do not agree that this decision today is a judgment on the ability of local government to make good choices for local communities, but we should be trying to take action in this Parliament. It does not exacerbate inequality, so I do believe that we should have a rights-based approach. The points that have been raised about exemptions would be unfair if police officers in Glasgow were exempt, but not exempt in Edinburgh. I think that there should be some basic things that we get right at a national level. I wonder if that is an issue that the Government should reflect on in terms of guidance that could be set nationally so that we get some broad principles agreed. That would help local government if, in future, they were thinking about delivering a scheme. I have some trouble with the discussion around modelling. My understanding is that modelling is about looking at events that have not happened yet and trying to look at different scenarios. For me, the modelling should have been done by the Scottish Government that would have looked at a number of things that relate to the Scottish context in terms of the policies that we have already, the infrastructure that we have right now, and to try to model the behaviour change in Scotland. I think that we are focusing too heavily on the Nottingham experience and Nottingham is a city that I know very well through family connections, but I would like to have heard more about what analysis has been done to look at possible scenarios in Scotland. We have to recognise that bus and train fares are rising. Cycling infrastructure is not good enough. People do not feel safe walking the streets to their work, particularly women. We have the national good news of students arriving in, I think, 50 minutes time to do a protest at Parliament about the poverty that students are facing. They have also raised concerns about the workplace park in Levy. It would be remiss of us as legislators and parliamentarians to turn our face against those concerns and say, well, this legislation was passed a couple of years ago. We have to take responsibility now. I agree with the motion that we should annul this and use this time to try and get this right, because all the discussions that we have had around climate emergency and COP26 and what happens next are that people want a just transition. They want to see bold action, but they do not want to see those who have done the least to cause climate change bear the burden. One of the things that sticks out in my mind that came up during COP26 is that the Government-owned press airport can fly in on their private jets for business meetings and pack for free, but we are potentially asking low-wage workers, people on minimum wage on zero our contracts to pay this, and we cannot give them straight answers. Those are some of the inequalities that I would like to see addressed, so I will be supporting the motion to annul today. I fear that this debate this morning has been a complete waste of time. I totally respect the fact that Graham Simpson has got an ideological opposition to Workplace, Park and Levy. He is entitled to challenge the provision of Workplace, Park and Levy in the 2019 Transport Act. I cannot remember if he did it at the time, but the Tory certainly tried to get it struck down, but we are beyond that now. The motion that he moves today will not remove that provision from the statute book. If he wants to remove it from the statute book, he is more than welcome to bring forward a member's bill and make this a defining campaign of this session of Parliament, but his motion to annul will not do that. It is telling that the UK Government level, a similar provision, remains in UK law. Some councils have made use of that. Other councils have decided not to. That has been their decision, but there has been no attempt by the UK Government to remove this provision. If that is something Mr Simpson wants to try and do, he is more than welcome to do that, but that is not the effect of what he is moving today. It might be his intention, but it is not the effect. I know that, post-2019, there was a detailed discussion in virtually all local authorities across Scotland about whether they wanted to introduce Workplace, Park and Levy, or not. I can remember discussing local authorities in my own region. Some of those that were more rural in nature decided not to introduce this. They had that discussion locally with businesses and with major employers around their towns and cities and decided that either the time was not right then or that it was not a provision that they were wanting to pursue. We need to trust local authorities. We need to empower local authorities. As a key point made by Jackie Dunbar, we need to ensure that that discussion happens locally and the decision to push forward at Workplace, Park and Levy or not is taken at that local level. Since 2019, what has changed? We have a climate emergency. I am very grateful, particularly given the circumstances. As you are speaking, I am listening carefully to what you are saying, Mr Ruskell. You asked the minister what I thought was a very good question about the modelling that had been done about whether businesses would come back to town and city centres. We did not get an answer on the modelling. We got an aspiration, you got an aspiration, but not an answer on whether the modelling had been done. Now, you have listened to the session this morning. There have been lots of requests about what data is being relied upon here. That is lacking. Surely, Mr Ruskell, you accept that data is lacking and it would be better to go back, work out what that looks like, work out the impact on lower-paid workers, work out the impact on the rural communities and then come back at a later date once those have been corrected. Mr Kerr, you are getting hung up on the word modelling. That is not a simple input-output spreadsheet where you put the cost of workplace parking levy in and you get some kind of output from that. What all councils need to do is look at the experience of where workplace parking levies have been introduced and have those detailed discussions with employers that operate within their areas, with communities around how a scheme might work. It is only through doing that work can you then get an understanding about what the aspirations of employers might be and whether they may wish to move back to city centre locations that would benefit the local economy and may well have lower numbers of parking spaces. That is a conversation with the individual employers. You are not going to put all that data into a spreadsheet, Mr Kerr, and suddenly you get an answer. It requires that discussion, that local democratic process, to work out how a workplace parking levy could be introduced. I think that we have good evidence coming from where it has been introduced in England, and I think that the quicker that we can get on with introducing WPO in Edinburgh and Glasgow will then have a solid base of evidence to empower other local authorities to make a decision about whether it is the right thing for them to do. We only really get to the end point of this by learning through doing and by implementing workplace parking levy on the ground. I will come back to what has changed since 2019. The climate emergency has accelerated, and we all know in this committee how hard it is to bring down those transport emissions. The low-hanging fruit has gone. We have to make decisions here, and this Parliament did make a decision in 2019 to put this in as an option for local authorities to deliver. We also know that congestion is not coming down in our cities. That is damaging not just our health, but it is damaging our economy as well. Seven billion pounds was lost to the UK economy last year through congestion. That is not benefiting anybody. It is not benefiting the businesses that have concerns about workplace parking levy. It is not benefiting any part of our economy or society. Monica Lennon talks about the decline of bus services. This is an area in which we share some concerns, but I see it as a way of investing additional resources, additional funding to give everybody a much better alternative to the car. That needs work. The existing programmes that local councils have will not be enough to meet the 20 per cent vehicle reduction. Mark Ruskell will give you on that point. To go back to the example of the X-1 bus, which was an express service between Hamilton and Glasgow, well used in the local area. First, it did not share their modelling and data. I said that it was not making enough profit. There has been a lot of sympathy across the political spectrum. The community has fought really hard, but that bus route has not been returned, and constituents of mine now say—not all of them, but many of them say that they now drive or car share to get to work in the city. Is there anything in this workplace parking levy that is going to make it possible for that bus to come back? That is not a theoretical debate. People are having to make these choices when they get up in the morning and when they are coming home from work. Sadly, in that case, I am giving people who were using the bus on a regular basis are now using the car. Is this workplace parking levy going to change that situation? I think that it can. I share your concerns. I have had a similar issue with the X-53, which I brought to a member's debate in Parliament. There has been a lack of transparency from the companies about why they are pulling certain services. I know that Covid has had an impact on that as well, but I think that that comes down to the imagination of councils to devise local transport strategies that put in place robust local bus partnerships that ensure that we can make services viable going forward. That could include municipal bus companies. I do not see why, if that is part of a local transport strategy under the provisions of this legislation, we cannot see additional investment and I stress the additional investment in those initiatives. It is for us to push the boundaries out about how WPL can be used to incentivise those public transport services and ensure that they are in place as WPL is being rolled out. I think that the case now, particularly given the cost of living crisis, is stronger to bring in a measure that can drive this investment and give ordinary families the public transport systems that they deserve and that they need. I do not think that councils are coming forward and spending workplace parking levy on building motorways. That is not what it is for. It is an anti-congestion measure. It is a measure to invest in the alternatives, to give people the alternatives that they desperately need. We are just being bizarre for councils. I think that I need to make a bit of progress now, Mr Simpson. The purpose of the local transport strategies, which we will have to link into the national transport strategies, will be to drive down congestion to meet that 20 per cent of vehicle mileage reduction target. The investments that come from that that WPL will be used to fund have to be able to meet that target and to work with that direction of travel. It is not a money-making scheme. It is a tram-building scheme, Mr Simpson. It is a cycle-lane building scheme. It is a bus-priority scheme, a building scheme. That is what WPL is for. It is about investing in the future, and I think that it is high time that we just got on and delivered it. I think that, while we have heard legitimate concerns this morning and around this proposal, there are legitimate answers to those as well, which we likewise have heard here today. I do not think that we should delay that any further. There seems to be a lot of emphasis this morning on the charge cap and examples of really extreme circumstances relating to the implementation of the levy. I have lost count of the number of times that the point has been made that it will be for local authorities to decide what happens in their areas. Those opposed seem to have been touched on by my colleague Jackie Mark, but very little faith in the ability of local councils to implement that in a way that works for their area. As a councillor, I find that shocking, because we are best placed to know what is going on in our local areas and what would work. Given the consultation and the regulations that have to be carried out in line with that, that backs up even more. It backs up the local authority to be the best place to take that forward. I do not understand the thinking why local authorities in Scotland should not have the same powers as those in England. We have seen that it has been effectively utilised in England and Wales. As I have touched on, that is not just going to happen overnight. We have heard that that is going to take years. There are things in place so that local authorities have to go through a due process and consultations to find the best way that works for them at the end. Achieving our 2030 target of 75 per cent emissions is going to require significant changes to behaviour, and that is a tool for local authorities to support that. I am absolutely behind that. I think that it is extremely positive that the revenue that is going to be raised by the levees will be used to support the objectives of local transport strategies. I completely understand the sentiments that have been raised around the cost of living crisis that we have experienced just now, but transport improvements that could come about through that could be hugely beneficial to people in poverty or to those on low incomes, who are disproportionately affected just now by poor public transport services. Again, it will be for councils to read what is best in their area. I concur with Mr Simpson's comments in 2017, which we have already heard today in regard to empowering local councils and taking decisions locally. I am just wondering what has changed. To me, it appears this morning that there has been more interest in playing party politics than in empowering local communities to follow that through and tackling climate change. In conclusion, convener, I think that that will be hugely beneficial for some areas, and councils that know their area best will have the option to implement that or not. They will be able to shape the scheme, provide exemptions, as we have heard, and set fees. Again, if it is not right for the area, they will be able to decide that. We talk about localism, we talk about handing more power to local authorities, so I think that we should continue with that, and I will be voting against that motion to annul. Thank you, Natalie. I will now pass over to the minister to respond to the points that have been raised. Having listened to the points that have been raised in the debate, I come back to the point that most of the issues have been decided by the Parliament in the 2019 Transport Act, some three years ago, or that relate to the details of specific schemes that are for local authorities' discretion, empowerment and local accountability as part of the requirement in the act to set out schemes, felt and carrier impact assessments. There was a conversation around the regulations that are looking at introducing a cap, for example on charges. If the motion today goes forward and is annulled, I cannot change it. It has to be done by primary legislation, so I think that members need to understand that. We have had a conversation around that today, but we need to be very clear about what we are voting on today. Those are the regulations. I cannot unpick the regulations to introduce a cap. It would have to be done via primary legislation. What the regulations do is give local authorities the powers that they have already been provided with in the act. That is hugely important. We have heard from members in summing up contributions and in the question and answer session. That power already exists in England and Wales, where we have a Labour Administration in Nottingham and a Conservative Government who have been perfectly happy for those powers to exist and to operate. Likewise, we have heard that certain local authorities in England and Wales do not choose to use that power, but that is in the gift of local authorities. It is not for politicians like me or ministers to direct. Those powers were given by the Parliament on the basis that local authorities can design schemes that reflect their local circumstances. There are robust requirements on local authorities to consult the people who are likely to be impacted by local schemes and requirements for local authorities to undertake impact assessments. Fundamentally, those powers are about trusting our local authorities. Will the minister take an intervention? Absolutely. Can I thank the minister for taking the intervention? Minister, you said in your opening comments that the reason this instrument had been delayed was because of Covid. Businesses are still struggling, a point that I made earlier. Why do you think now is the right time to introduce this instrument? On Mr Simpson's first point, I want to make it very clear that the delay was related to resource in Government, because we had to redirect pathways of civil servants to deal with the emergency legislation. We had to pass back in 2020, he will recall, not because it was a bad idea. On the point about businesses and what is the right time, in my previous role, Mr Simpson will recall that the UK Government took a decision not to extend the transition period during the worst successes of the pandemic and is said to plough ahead with a hard Brexit, impacting devastating many businesses across Scotland. I find it quite difficult to take lessons from the Conservatives on what is the right time to take forward legislation like this, which will impact on businesses. I also think that, to some extent, the Conservatives have used Covid to hide behind some of the impacts of Brexit. I hope that there is no suggestion from the Conservatives that Covid can be used to hide behind the climate emergency. We heard from Mr Russell the need for urgency on that. We have to get on. The workplace parking levy is one such way in which we can work with local authorities to achieve our climate change ambitions. I would like to make some progress, Mr Simpson. On the concerns raised today about impacts on different types of businesses and workers, those points will be for local authorities to consider, to consult on and to assess. The act gives local authorities the power to shape their own schemes by specifying the time of day, for example. That is quite important. Monica Lennon talked about vulnerable workers. It is important that we look at the time of day and what type of workers are working at what time of day, for example, women working in night-time industries, potentially in hospitality, geographic boundary and local exemptions to ensure that councils have the flexibility and discretion to support positive outcomes. As we 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 kind of skirted around the edges of the climate change emergency today, but I want to come back to that. Would you take an intervention minister just briefly? Yes, Mr Kerr. I am very grateful. I want to go back to that question that I asked earlier on, because obviously I understand why, but you are pushing a lot of that on to local authorities. Transport Scotland said that supporting regulations and guidance will be necessary to provide national consistency on key elements of the scheme. You told me earlier that that has not even been started, I think. When can the local authorities expect that guidance to be finalised and produced? I do not think that I said to you, Mr Kerr, that it has not been started. I do not think that that is accurate. We plan to publish guidance in the first half of 2022, if Parliament agrees to the regulations today. 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 those regulations, but that local authorities might want to look at in their own consultations. That guidance will also include referencing to the support that is already available to local authorities in existing guidance for best practice in terms of their own consultations. I mentioned the climate change emergency before taking the intervention from Mr Kerr, and I think that it is important that we link back to that, because all parties in this chamber supported the ambitious, legally binding emissions reductions targets in the Scottish Climate Change Act 2020. 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. I think that I was a key point made by Mark Ruskell. Now is the time to support the Climate Change Act 2020 with real actions, not just words. We have heard much today from the Nottingham example. I again make the point that this is the only scheme in operation in the United Kingdom. I would point to the positive outcomes that have been outlined in previous evidence given by Nottingham City Council, a Labour-run council, to the predecessor committee to this one. Nottingham has among the highest public transport use in the country, with an associated fall of 40 million car miles over the last 15 years, and the revenue from the workplace parking levy has also supported the expansion of Nottingham's successful tram system, which I mentioned earlier. Nottingham also makes grants available to support employers to implement sustainable transport measures such as cycle parking, for example. Again, it is a hugely significant investment. In conclusion, I am pleased that this Government has brought forward these regulations so that local authorities in Scotland can make use of the new discretionary powers that Parliament provided to them. I do not support the motion to annul those regulations, which are technical and necessary in order for workplace parking licensing schemes to be implemented in an effective and a transparent manner. I would urge Mr Simpson to withdraw his motion, and if he does not so, do so for members of the committee to oppose the motion to annul the regulations today. Thank you very much minister. I now invite Graham Simpson MSP to wind up the debate. Thank you very much convener. It has been a very full debate, so I do not intend to delay the committee for very much longer. I would simply make a couple of points, and nobody has really addressed this point. The minister did not address it when I intervened on her. She instead wanted to talk about Brexit. This is not the right time to introduce this instrument. Companies and employers are suffering at the moment. 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. On the matter of exemptions, which has been raised, the minister does have the power to introduce exemptions. She seems not to want to use it, but that would cover people like shift workers, for example. I used to be a shift worker myself, and I had to work in a city centre. It was a concern, particularly for some of my female colleagues having to walk through a city centre late at night. What if you work in an industrial estate at night, where there is no public transport and your employer decides to pass on the parking levy to their staff, which they could well do? I think that the member is addressing one of the key points of exemptions that local authorities could make themselves. Indeed, for those who have big tourism hospitality interests, cities such as Edinburgh might want to consider that. There are very few industrial plants in the very centres of cities, for example, but I think that his point about shift workers is well made. However, he seems to be saying that the minister needs to make that decision. Why does he not think that local authorities, particularly the cities that are seriously looking at this, have the capability of understanding either shift working or indeed where the industrial estates are within their city centre boundaries? Why does he not trust them? It is not a matter of not trusting local councils, Ms Hyslop. You helpfully mentioned our previous local government manifesto, which I was the author of. I agree with every word of it. We will wait and see what transpires for the next one. It is not a matter of not trusting local councils, but the minister has the power to introduce exemptions. She could set that out. That is a point that I made during the process of the act. I tried to get it into the act that we would exempt shift workers and people who either do not live near to public transport or do not work near to public transport. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful, but it is a real concern if that goes through. Convener, I am going to end it there because I think that we have spent probably long enough with explored all the issues, but I will move the motion to an all. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. That brings us to motion 0366 in the name of Graham Simpson, MSP. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. As we are in a hybrid meeting, we will have a roll call vote, and I will invite members to vote in alphabetical order with my vote being cast at the end. The choices are yes, no or abstain to the motion. First up is Natalie Dawn. How do you vote, Natalie? No. Jackie Dunbar. No. Fiona Hyslop. No. Liam Kerr. Yes. Monica Lennon. Yes. Mark Ruskell. No. My vote is yes. All members have now voted. The results of the vote are three in favour, four against and zero abstentions. The motion is therefore disagreed. The committee will now produce a report on the draft instrument reflecting the evidence and the vote's cast. Is the committee content to delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree this report on behalf of the committee? Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of this session. I would like to thank the minister and her officials for their time this morning. Thank you very much, and that brings us to the end of the public session. Thank you. From the clerk is that item four I mentioned at the beginning of the committee meeting will be deferred to next week because of timing considerations. Thank you very much.