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

Greene, Jamie Con West Scotland Watch on SPTV

Amendment 207 relates to the grant-making powers of ministers. Currently, ministers may make grants to help local authorities operate a scheme. The amendment would provide that ministers may help local authorities to meet the costs of the revocation of a scheme, particularly in light of the amendments in my name that we debated last week that were not agreed to, which would have taken away from ministers the power to revoke schemes. Given that ministers still have the power to revoke schemes, they should also have the power to help local authorities meet the cost of revocation. A practical example might be help with the costs of uninstalling approved devices, infrastructure and cameras and the costs that are associated with closing down the administration of the operation of a scheme, including redundancy and staffing costs. My understanding is that grants that are made available under section 19 would be mutually agreed between ministers and local authorities and therefore not unilaterally determined by Scottish ministers, which is what is currently stated in the bill. Amendment 208 would ensure equity of agreement of the conditions of the grants to ensure that local authorities are not obliged to enter into financial agreements with ministers without first having agreed to the amount and the terms. I seek some clarity from the minister as to why, as the bill is drafted, the grant would require repayment. Does that not mean that it would be classed as a loan, rather than a grant? A grant implies that there would be no terms of repayment of either the capital or the interest. Amendment 209 on revenues achieved by local authorities is important. One would assume that there will be surplus revenue after the operating costs in each local authority that operates a zone are deducted. In my view, such revenue should be used to improve and encourage low-carbon and carbon-free travel in the zone. For example, revenue that is collected from people who are breaching the rules of the zone could be used to fund schemes such as cycle lanes or electric charging points in our cities. My view has always been that penalty charges should not simply be a revenue-generating source for low-emission zones and part of their wider financial pot but should be a true deterrent to non-compliant vehicles entering the zone. Penalising such behaviour could create the necessary funds to build the low and no-carbon infrastructure in the zones that is required to meet the modal shift that we desperately need in those cities. Agreeing to amendment 209 would mean that drivers could rest assured that LEZs are not just a tax on drivers simply for the sake of it and that the revenues achieved would build sustainable, low-carbon transport infrastructure. I am very open to the amendment being reworded as members see fit, but I hope that we agree that the revenues that are generated by low-emission zones should be put to good use, such as to promote sustainable and active travel. Again, I am interested to hear the Government’s response to that. Amendment 211 is to do with reporting requirements. Section 23 stipulates that an annual report must be published before the end of the financial year in which the zone began operating. However, at the moment, there is little guidance about the necessary content of that report. Amendment 211 would oblige local authorities to include specific pieces of information, such as the total costs of proposing, creating and operating a scheme, and the gross and net revenues achieved, in annual reports. More important, proposed new subsection (c) would require information to be included on “how the revenue has been used to facilitate the achievement of the scheme’s objectives.” At the moment, the Scottish ministers may give direction to a local authority to carry out a review of an LEZ scheme. That is a sensible approach, but amendment 212 would give local authorities the technical ability to carry out a review of a zone, its operation and effectiveness at any given time, as it sees fit, without any prior direction from the Government, if it chooses to do so. Allowing a local authority to review the effectiveness of a low-emission zone would help identify any weaknesses in the structure of its zone and give it the opportunity to improve it. I think that developing low-emission zones over the years will be a critical part in assuring their long-term success. I hope that members think that giving local authorities the ability to carry out such reviews as they deem fit would be a useful additional power. I move amendment 207.

Search Hansard contributions

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 12 June 2019

In the same item of business