Hansard

Much of the discussion around workplace parking levies has been about exemptions. Questions have been asked about what will be exempt, why groups would be exempt, and who will apply the exemptions. Amendment 15 sets out the basis for exemption under the scheme, and it covers four key areas. It requires that any workplace parking licensing scheme must include any national exemptions set by Scottish ministers as well as the national exemptions provided for in the bill. The proposed national exemptions in the bill are set out in my amendment 16. Amendment 15 also gives local authorities the power to set further exemptions. That is a wide-ranging power, as those exemptions can apply to “specific premises” or premises with “a specified number of parking places”, or to “persons or motor vehicles”. That is really important, as it allows local authorities to draw up a scheme in the light of local circumstances, and they will have a wide scope as to what exemptions they can apply and how they apply them. The approach builds on the flexibility around how the scheme may be applied, as set out in my amendment 7. I firmly believe that the local level, not the national level, is where further exemptions should be determined. It is self-evident that informed decisions made at the local level will better meet the needs of an area. Decisions will be based on an understanding of local issues and preferred outcomes. My amendments ensure that a scheme can be tailored to meet local needs and circumstances. That is far removed from the rigid one-size-fits-all picture that opponents of the workplace parking levy have painted. Amendment 15 also ensures that only one scheme can cover the same premises at any given time. It also gives Scottish ministers the power, by regulations, to provide for other exemptions or to restrict exemptions. My amendment 27 requires that such regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that any future proposals for national exemptions will face full and transparent scrutiny. I firmly believe that the framework for exemptions delivers the clarity that is sought, while giving flexibility to implement local schemes to meet local needs. Amendments 15A and 15B are on exemptions for small car parks. Amendment 15A, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeks to make a business with 15 parking places or fewer—or any higher number that the local authority determines—exempt from charges under any workplace parking levy scheme. Amendment 15B, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to set the figure at 20 parking places. The amendments cover the same ground as amendment 7A, in the name of Mike Rumbles, which we considered earlier. Colin Smyth wants the minimum threshold to be 15 parking places, Jamie Greene wants it to be 20 and Mike Rumbles wanted it to be 10. 10:00 That variation makes my point that it is best left to the local authority to decide the matter. Why would we apply random thresholds at a national level to a local scheme? Let us leave the decisions to the people who have to design, plan, consult on, implement and assess the impact of a scheme—ultimately, they will have to justify their decisions to the electorate. The framework provided by my amendments delivers clarity and flexibility. I cannot support amendments 15A or 15B. Amendment 16 sets out the national exemptions that should be applied to workplace parking levy schemes. Those are: parking places for blue badge holders and equivalent disabled parking badges; qualifying NHS premises; and places at hospices. I will address each of those exemptions in turn. I am sure that the committee will welcome the exemption for blue badge holders. As well as protecting the rights of disabled people, it also provides an incentive for those with premises liable for the levy to consider making more such parking spaces available. Committee members will be well aware that the exclusion of hospitals and NHS premises from the workplace parking levy was part of the budget agreement. Amendment 16 delivers that. However, the inclusion of NHS premises in amendment 16 is about more than the budget agreement. It is difficult to imagine a more strategically important and distinctive function than that provided by the NHS on a national level. That is something that resonates with the public. Of course I am aware that there are other sectors that have national significance, but it is important to be clear that not having a national exemption does not mean that a workplace parking levy scheme would apply in a local situation. There are several steps that will shape that. I apologise if that seems self-evident, but much of the criticism of my amendments—including that implied in the many amendments to amendment 16 that have been lodged—seems to miss that point. Step 1 is that a local authority will have to decide whether it wishes to set up a scheme—that decision is up to the local authority. Step 2 is that the local authority will set out the scope of the scheme and, as part of that, it will determine local exemptions. That will then be subject to detailed assessment of the people affected and the environment. Step 3 will be consultation. Finally, if a scheme is implemented, the levy will be applied to premises, not people. It would be a matter for the occupiers of the premises to pass on any levy that is applied. The principle of localism underpins my approach to workplace parking levies. The national strategic importance of the NHS warrants a national exemption, but, otherwise, decisions on how a workplace parking levy scheme would operate, including additional exemptions, are best made at the local level. Such decisions will be part of the wider strategic vision of the needs of an area, underpinned by detailed impact assessments. My view is that national exemptions should be the exception to the rule. I accept that there is a lot of interest in exemptions. However, the vast bulk of the amendments in the group appear to be a shopping list of additional national exemptions. Some of those are for sectoral groups, while others name individual bodies. I have no doubt that the amendments are sincerely proposed but, taken as a whole, they appear to be intended to weaken the provisions to ensure that a workplace parking levy would never get off the ground. That goes against the principle of localism, underpinned by a strategic approach, which is what amendment 16 delivers. I would like to say a little more about the definition of “NHS” in amendment 16. For the purposes of the amendment, the NHS is widely defined—it includes general practitioners, for example. That represents the continuum of care that the public expects the NHS to deliver. Amendment 16 also includes a national exemption for hospices. Some hospices are on NHS premises and some are not. To draw a distinction between different hospices according to where they are located would seem inappropriate, so I have attempted to make it clear that all hospices should be exempt, regardless of their location. I draw the committee’s attention to subsection (2)(b) of the new section that amendment 16 would introduce, which would allow NHS premises where NHS services are not delivered to be liable for the levy. That would cover, for example, NHS premises that are let to a company that does not directly provide NHS services. I believe that that is right and that the public will agree with that view. The amendments to amendment 16 would add a range of national exemptions, from exemptions for sectoral groups to exemptions for different sorts of premises and private companies. They would go against the principles of localism that underpin such schemes. Why is there so little trust in local authorities to make decisions locally? The framework that I have set out would provide the clarity and flexibility that are required to deliver on the ground, which we know that COSLA wants. I ask the committee to support my amendments 15, 16 and 27. I ask members with other amendments in the group not to move them and, if those amendments are moved, I ask the committee to vote against them. I move amendment 15.