Hansard

That is correct. Amendment 10 underpins the reality of the consultative nature of the proposals. There are strong duties on local authorities to consult on a proposed scheme and on plans to amend or revoke a scheme. There must be clarity on the scheme’s objectives; the area that it will cover; exemptions; what people can expect to pay; what the funds will be used for; and how the scheme will address the objectives of the local transport strategy. There must also be an impact assessment, to consider the impact on the people who might have to pay charges and on the environment. Amendment 11 gives the Scottish ministers the power to make regulations about the procedures for making, amending and revoking a workplace parking licensing scheme. Amendment 12 gives the Scottish ministers and local authorities the power to have a local inquiry into proposals to make, amend or revoke a workplace parking levy scheme. I see that very much as a tool to be used if needed, rather than a regular part of the development of a scheme. The amendment also requires a local authority to await the completion of the inquiry before implementing a proposal—we might imagine that to be self-evident, but it is important to spell it out in the bill. Amendment 13 provides for a licensing scheme to set out procedural matters in relation to the granting and issuing of licences, licence conditions and so on. Amendment 14 specifies what must and may be included in licences. Amendments 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D relate to the scope and content of licensing schemes. Amendment 7A, in Mike Rumbles’s name, seeks to ensure that licences can be required only if more than 10 workplace parking places are provided. It is not appropriate for the bill to take such a restrictive approach. Local authorities might decide—as Nottingham City Council did—that people who provide fewer than a specified number of parking places should be exempt, and the appropriateness of doing that and the number itself is best determined with regard to local circumstances. There should also be flexibility to change the number as and when appropriate. Pauline McNeill’s amendments 7B and 7C specify particular assessments of displacement, the impacts on poverty and the implications for workers that a local authority should carry out in advance of the introduction of a scheme. My amendment 10 will require that “Before making, amending or revoking a ... scheme, a local authority” should “prepare and publish ... an assessment of the impacts of the proposal”, specifically on “persons who may have to pay charges” and on “the environment.” I believe that amendment 10 addresses the aim of Pauline McNeill’s amendments. Peter Chapman’s amendment 7D would require a scheme to be reviewed annually. On the face of it, the amendment looks as though it would be a simple tweak to improve accountability. However, under amendment 7, local authorities will need to set out how they will review “the operation and effectiveness of the scheme”. I am minded to let local authorities make that decision. Amendments 8E, 8A, 8F, 8B, 8G, 8C, 8H and 8D relate to the definition of “workplace parking places”. Mike Rumbles’s amendments 8A and 8C are intended to leave out “business customer” in relation to the definition of “workplace parking”. Such people are those who, in the course of their business, park at the premises of another business of which they are a client or customer. An example might be a property developer parking for a meeting with their accountant. Perhaps Mr Rumbles’s concern is that the term might catch people who park at supermarkets to pick up their shopping. I covered that point earlier, so I hope that that concern has been addressed. The provision is about parking in the course of business only. It is not clear to me what Mike Rumbles is seeking to achieve with amendment 8B. If his intention is to prevent students and others who park to attend education or training courses from paying the charge, amendment 8B will not have that effect, because such parking would still be part of the definition of a “workplace parking place” in subsection (1) of the proposed new section that will be introduced by my amendment 8. In any event, there is no obvious reason why students should not be required to pay the charge in towns and cities where the levies are introduced. Indeed, young people are a key demographic that we should be encouraging to adopt active and sustainable modes of transport. Dean Lockhart’s amendment 8E would have the effect of restricting the definition of “workplace parking” to parking by workers and members of bodies whose affairs are controlled by their members. That would mean that charges could not be levied on parking by agents or suppliers of a business, business customers or visitors, or people who attend an education or training course. The question that I have to ask is why we should exclude those groups. Again, there might be the concern that a “business customer” would cover people who park in a local supermarket, but that is simply not the case. Dean Lockhart’s amendment 8F would remove parking that is provided by a third party from the definition of “workplace parking”. In practice, that would mean that, if a company were to lease spaces in another premises to provide workplace parking, no charges would be payable. Again, the question is why that should be the case. Not only would that be against the spirit of the proposal; it could create a massive loophole. Dean Lockhart’s amendments 8G and 8H are concerned with definitions. Amendment 8G would have the effect of removing the definitions of “business”, “business customer”, “business visitor” and “Government department”. Amendment 8G is similar to amendment 8B, but it would also exclude parking at premises that are used by Government departments and other public bodies, which would be very unfair. For what reason in principle should we exempt such bodies from the levy that others will have to pay? I wonder whether that was the intention behind amendment 8G. Dean Lockhart’s amendment 8H would modify the definition of a “worker” and would mean that a charge that arises from a scheme could be applied only to parking by permanent full-time workers. Aside from being against the spirit of the scheme, amendment 8H would create potential loopholes and would provide a potential incentive to employers to not offer full-time contracts, in order to avoid paying the levy. Surely that is not the intention behind amendment 8H. Mike Rumbles’s amendment 8D would remove the Scottish ministers’ powers to alter, by regulation, the circumstances in which workplace parking is provided. In practice, that would mean that categories that are set out in amendment 8 would be fixed and could not be adjusted later if need be, depending on the experience of how schemes are operating, without primary legislation. Regulations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and amendment 8D would make the scheme inflexible. I turn to amendments 9A, 9B, 9C and 9D. John Mason’s amendment 9A is interesting. By seeking to extend the powers to make a workplace parking licence scheme to regional transport partnerships, it recognises that transport patterns and issues are not set by local authority boundaries. That is why my amendment 9 allows for joint working by local authorities.