Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 12 June 2019

12 Jun 2019 · S5 · Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Item of business

Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Matheson, Michael SNP Falkirk West Watch on SPTV

Ministers have consistently stated that the Government would provide significant funding for transport-based air pollution and LEZs. In that regard, it is right that ministers should also make grants that extend to the revoking of LEZs, to help a local authority in meeting such costs. I am therefore willing to support amendment 207. Likewise, I am willing to support amendment 208. We have established a partnership approach with local authorities to put in place LEZs, and that approach is working well. I see merit in applying the same principles in establishing that the grant conditions for any repayment would be decided by negotiation between ministers and local authorities. I believe that amendments 209 and 227 are too prescriptive, but the outcomes that are sought by both amendments could still be delivered, if the objectives of LEZ schemes were developed in a way that focused on issues such as low-carbon transport or active travel. I am happy to commit to including those issues in the LEZ guidance. On that basis, I ask Jamie Greene and Brian Whittle not to press those amendments today. I am conscious that local authorities want assurances on the use of penalty moneys. That is quite understandable, and my amendment 64 changes the relative weight of section 21(a) and (b) such that moneys received from LEZ penalty charges must go first towards meeting LEZ scheme objectives, and only when those objectives are achieved would the penalty money be used to make any grant repayments to ministers. With that in mind, we expect local authorities to use their objective-setting powers to set ambitious and smart objectives that will make the best use of any penalty moneys that are received. Amendment 210 would require that a copy of a local authority’s annual report on its LEZ scheme is laid before the Scottish Parliament and I am happy to support such a requirement. 08:30 Amendment 211 draws attention to the issue of financial reporting on LEZ set-up and operating costs, gross and net revenue and how the revenue has been used. I agree with the premise of transparency of financial reporting, so I am willing to support amendment 211. Given that local authorities are responsible for specifying and reporting on their LEZ schemes, it would seem sensible that they also have the power to instigate a review of their own volition. Amendments 65 and 212 both look to achieve that, but I think that amendment 65 is clearer in setting out the interaction with any review that takes places at ministers’ direction, so I am happy to support it at the expense of amendment 212. In summary, I am happy to support amendments 207, 208 and 211, which have been proposed by Jamie Greene, amendment 65, which is proposed by Colin Smyth, and amendment 210, which is proposed by John Finnie. I ask Jamie Greene not to move amendments 209 and 212, for the reasons that I have given, and I ask Brian Whittle not to move amendment 227. If amendments 209, 212 and 227 are moved, I urge the committee to reject them.

Search Hansard contributions

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 12 June 2019

In the same item of business