Overview
This Bill seeks to:
- allow councils to create low-emission zones
- help councils improve local bus services
- encourage ‘smart’ ticketing – flexible and electronic tickets – which can connect different services
- outlaw parking on pavements and double parking
- improve the regulation of road works
- increase the size of the Scottish Canals board
You can find out more in the Explanatory Notes document that explains the Bill.
Why the Bill was created
Transport is key in helping people live full lives and contributing to sustainable economic growth.
The Bill aims to ensure Scotland’s transport network operates more efficiently and is more accessible. It also aims to improve the air quality in towns and cities. It will help to empower Scotland’s councils and establish consistent standards to make transport easier, cleaner and smarter than ever before.
Covering different transport issues in this one Bill makes it easier rather than lots of smaller Bills, so the issues can be addressed more quickly.
You can find out more in the Policy Memorandum document that explains the Bill.
The Transport (Scotland) Bill became an Act on 15 November 2019
Becomes an Act
This Bill passed by a vote of 56 for, 29 against and 18 abstentions. It became an Act on 15 November 2019.
Introduced
The Scottish Government sends the Bill and related documents to the Parliament.
Related information from the Scottish Government on the Bill
Why the Bill is being proposed (Policy Memorandum)
Explanation of the Bill (Explanatory Notes)
How much the Bill is likely to cost (Financial Memorandum)
Opinions on whether the Parliament has the power to make the law (Statements on Legislative Competence)
Information on the powers the Bill gives the Scottish Government and others (Delegated Powers Memorandum)
Stage 1 - General principles
Committees examine the Bill. Then MSPs vote on whether it should continue to Stage 2.
Committees involved in this Bill
Who examined the Bill
Each Bill is examined by a 'lead committee'. This is the committee that has the subject of the Bill in its remit.
It looks at everything to do with the Bill.
Other committees may look at certain parts of the Bill if it covers subjects they deal with.
Who spoke to the lead committee about the Bill
First meeting transcript
The Convener
Item 2 is our first evidence session on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Due to the large number of topics contained in the bill, the evidence taking will be structured in three parts. Part 1 will cover buses and smart ticketing, part 2 will cover low-emission zones and parking and part 3 will cover road works, canals and regional transport partnerships.
We will take evidence today from three groups of Scottish Government officials. I welcome to the first session Tasha Geddie from the Transport (Scotland) Bill team; Peter Grant, who is team leader for bus policy; Gordon Hanning, who is head of the integrated ticketing unit; and Kevin Gibson and Alison Martin, who are solicitors in the legal department.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Good morning, panel. I am going to ask questions about buses and smart ticketing. How will the bill improve the provision of lifeline rural bus services?
Peter Grant (Scottish Government)
The bill sets out new and improved options for local authorities to address bus services in their area. We have set out three tools, the first of which is a new partnership model. The second tool is access to local franchising, which is where the local authority would compete in the market for bus services at set times in the year, and the third is for a local authority to run bus services directly or at arm’s length. That applies to supported services and not commercial services.
The bill also offers provisions on information for bus users so that bus operators will share more information on fares, routes, timetables and so on. The last aspect is that if an operator deregisters a service, the bill gives local authorities the power to ask that operator for patronage and revenue information on those services. All of those tools will be available to local authorities.
You said that you were particularly interested in the rural sphere.
John Finnie
Yes. How would those tools enhance what is there at the moment?
Peter Grant
There are quite a lot of different tools—I am not sure which one you are particularly interested in. We have tried to improve the framework of existing options. Tools already exist in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, for example quality partnerships and quality contracts. We have tried to improve those and go beyond them. We have also looked at direct running of bus services. Are there particular issues that you are interested in delving into?
John Finnie
Yes. There is frustration that, as we understand it, what is seen as a very good model—the Lothian Buses model—is not an option. Will you explain the legislative barriers to having a public operator operating successfully on a commercial basis, as Lothian Buses does? Why are those barriers not addressed by the bill?
Peter Grant
You are right to characterise that as not being addressed by the bill. Lothian Buses is the only remaining example in Scotland of a municipal bus company. There are a number down south—they are companies that were put at arm’s length from councils back in the 1980s. Through deregulation most of them were sold off to the private sector. At the time, however, Lothian Buses was not sold off, so it remains council owned. Lothian operates commercially and can compete in the commercial market, like First or Stagecoach.
John Finnie
Why does the bill not facilitate other local authorities responding in a similar way?
Peter Grant
The reason why we focused on supported bus services is that we had a full public consultation towards the end of last year. The issues that local authorities brought to the fore applied to cases, particularly in rural situations, where they already had the power to support bus services, which they do by putting them out to tender.
There are cases where no bids come forward, or just one bid, and local authorities are concerned about the price being high—essentially it is a monopoly situation. That was the specific problem that we sought to solve with the provisions in the bill. However, as you say, that is constrained to the supported-service end of things, not to the commercial end.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
Would you accept that if there is a disincentive to local authorities to set up municipal bus companies, and if Lothian Buses can continue with that model but no other local authority can do so, the bill would maintain a two-tier system? If there is a two-tier system, and commercial bus companies could bid for franchises, would local authorities also be able to bid for franchises?
Peter Grant
Strathclyde partnership for transport, under the powers that it inherited from being a passenger transport authority—essentially those powers were transferred to SPT—can already run buses, including in the commercial space. So far, it has chosen not to do so.
There is also an exemption in the Transport Act 1985 for islands authorities, although I think that you are interested in local authorities more broadly.
Colin Smyth
Yes. With respect, SPT and the islands do not cover the whole of Scotland. I live in Dumfries and Galloway. Under the bill’s provisions, Dumfries and Galloway Council would not be able to set up a company to run bus services, except for those services that currently make a loss. That is different from Lothian, so why do the provisions not apply to the whole of Scotland? Using Dumfries and Galloway as an example, would the council be able to bid for a franchise in its area under the bill’s provisions?
Peter Grant
I have tried to lay out our thinking behind the bill, which focuses on supported services. Since the bill was published we have had a number of discussions with stakeholders. Engagement on the bill has been going on for several years, but at recent information sessions and one-to-one meetings it has become apparent that there is some interest among certain authorities and stakeholder groups for a Lothian Buses model to be possible.
It is important to stress that although the bill does not provide for such a model, we are looking into the considerations around it.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
When a new transport bill was mooted, some of us hoped that it would improve transport and improve buses. I live in the SPT area and I am sorry but the current system does not work for me or my constituents. Are we missing a trick here? I had hoped that councils could run their own services in areas where the service is poor. We have got people out there who cannot get a bus after 6 o’clock or who cannot get a bus at a regular time. Can we not be bold and allow councils, even those that are partly in pay to SPT, to have a Lothian-type system?
Peter Grant
I am not sure that I can say much more about what the bill does and the rationale for where we are. We have had some discussions on the Lothian-style model and the commercial model. We would be looking into things such as competition and state-aid considerations to make sure that those things were safeguarded. The work has not been done on that yet, but those are considerations that we would have to take into account.
We recognise that Lothian runs good buses. The situation there has evolved over time, and we would want to be very careful not to do anything that would have unintended consequences that would undermine the Lothian model.
The Convener
We are at a slight impasse here because some of our questions relate to policy and are probably more appropriately directed at the minister when he comes in.
John Finnie
The committee is aware from other work that we have done that the research shows a significant decline in bus numbers due to increased car use, increased bus fares and increased journey times. Are there any measures in the bill that specifically address those issues?
Peter Grant
We are very mindful of that. We started by looking at bus patronage, which has been declining since the 1960s at least. You are absolutely right to compare that with car use and car ownership, which are the most closely correlated trends. It is important to say that bus patronage is not uniform across Scotland. The Scotland number is very much driven by Glasgow and Strathclyde, which has seen a more severe decline than other areas, but even in other areas we are seeing issues with bus patronage.
Recent work by KPMG on behalf of the Confederation of Passenger Transport tried to tease out why that patronage decline has taken place. We have a lot of discussions about that. Congestion is one issue that keeps coming back to us, and the tools that we have put in place are put in place with that in mind. For example, the bus service improvement partnership model gives a framework and a set of tools for local authorities to work with bus operators to tackle things like congestion that get in the way of a good, efficient bus service for the bus user. That is one tool that is in place to tackle bus patronage.
09:15The Convener
Jamie Greene has some questions on bus service improvement partnerships.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
Good morning, panel. I will try to bunch some of this up, and I appreciate that some of these questions might be for the cabinet secretary. You said that consultation on this subject has been taking place for quite some time. Do you have an idea of how many local authorities would like to set up or operate a bus service?
Peter Grant
The consultation gave us a good view of what local authorities thought of all the tools. We can happily provide you with the numbers.
It is fair to say that we are at quite an early stage, with the bill having just gone public. Local authorities are interested in having a framework of tools and some of them are interested in using particular ones. We have seen that from news stories, and we have had conversations with individual authorities that have said that they would like to run bus services directly. There are other areas where there is interest, but local authorities are not fully signed up to them because they have not seen the detail of the proposals in secondary legislation.
Jamie Greene
To give the committee an idea of how relevant this part of the bill will be, can you say whether we talking about a handful or dozens?
Peter Grant
A handful of municipal services are saying that they are very interested, and other authorities have come forward since the bill has been published and the discussion around the commercial end of direct running has begun. It is an emerging picture, so I do not have a set number.
Jamie Greene
Is it possible that there has not been more interest because the bill, as Richard Lyle said, does not open up adequate opportunities for local authorities to operate viable services? My understanding of the explanatory notes is that local authorities cannot operate a service if an existing commercial service is operating in the market, and they could only operate a service on what are classed as “unmet public transport need” routes. It is quite unclear how you define an area where there is unmet public transport need. Is that an area where there is no service running, where there is a poor service running or where a commercial operator has pulled out, which is commonplace across many of our constituencies?
Is it the case that it is simply not going to be commercially viable for any local authority to operate a service and that is perhaps why there has been less interest than we would have imagined?
Peter Grant
Local authorities’ ability to run bus services directly or at arm’s length is dealt with under section 63 of the 1985 act and the powers for local authorities to meet an unmet need. It is something that local authorities do as their meat and drink. They look at their communities and look at what bus services are necessary to serve those communities adequately, then they look at which services are provided commercially already. Currently, when they determine that there is a gap—an unmet need—they go out to tender to the private sector. All we are trying to do is extend the power for them to run those services directly.
We have had a number of conversations, chiefly with the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers, which very much welcomes that tool and says that it will be helpful, especially in cases where local authorities are not getting any bids for their tenders and would like the ability to run a service directly. There is some frustration that there is not the ability to do that uniformly across Scotland.
Jamie Greene
I wonder—
The Convener
Jamie, I am sorry, but we are running out of time. It is an interesting problem and it seems strange to me that we have got to where we are with the bill, after a lot of consultation, and we still have not bottomed out whether authorities want to do what they now seem to be expressing a wish to do. I cannot understand why that has not come to light earlier. Maybe we can put that question to the minister.
I am going to have to move on. Peter Chapman, can you ask a very succinct question on the subject that you have said that you want to ask about?
Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)
I will be as succinct as I possibly can. My question is about bus service improvement partnerships. The bill proposes the abolition of statutory bus quality partnerships and their replacement with BSIPs. We are told that a local transport authority would not be allowed to proceed with a BSIP if a “sufficient number” of bus operators that would be affected by the proposals object to it. We are not told what a “sufficient number” might be, but it seems to me that that allows bus operators a veto over any BSIP proposal.
The Convener
Sorry, but I asked for a succinct question. If we can keep them sharp, I will be able to fit in more questions and answers.
That question was to you, Peter Grant. May we have your short answer to that, please?
Peter Grant
I will try to be as quick as possible. In essence, the BSIP model tries to put a framework around a negotiation, so that local authorities and bus operators can sit down together and look at what communities need and what is required to deliver those things. You are right to home in on the voting mechanism, and the detail of that will be set out in regulations.
A local authority will put together a plan for a partnership for a given area. As you say, the partnership can only go ahead if the bus operators agree to it, so it is very much a negotiation done together. The local authority will want good, frequent bus services. It might look at maximum fares, for example, and have some control over that aspect. The bus operator, for its part, would perhaps want action on congestion and parking, for example. For the partnership to go ahead, it is important that both operators and the local authority buy into it.
The Convener
Peter, did you get your answer to what “sufficient number” means? What does it mean?
Peter Chapman
Have you any idea what a “sufficient number” means? The answer confirms what I said: that the bus operators de facto have a veto over the whole system, because if a certain number object—we do not know the number—then it will not go ahead.
Peter Grant
It is fair to say that if a large number of operators do not want to take part in the partnership, it cannot go ahead. The local authority would be expected to look at the other options that we put forward, in that case. What a “sufficient number” means is not laid out in the primary legislation. We are looking to set that out in regulations. It is quite a sensitive model to try to understand, as it involves not just the number of operators in the area but their market share. We want to work on that model with local authorities and bus operators and make sure that it is set at the right level for Scotland by regulation.
The Convener
I fear that we are not going to get that answer until the cabinet secretary comes in.
Richard Lyle
If legislation refers to a devolved matter, we can approve it or we can amend it. You have mentioned the 1985 act. Let me throw another act at you. No bus quality contracts have been established since the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 came into force. I think that we passed that one. Why do you think that the local service franchising proposals in the bill will meet with more success than the quality contract provisions of the 2001 act?
Peter Grant
We have had a number of conversations with local authorities, RTPs and others to try to improve what was laid out in the quality contract provisions of the 2001 act. One thing that we consulted on, which had a great deal of support, was removing the entry bar to quality contracts, or to franchising, as we are calling the new thing. Previously, the formulation was that quality contracts had to be necessary to implement the relevant general policies, and that was seen as too high a bar for them even to be attempted. We have worked with local authorities around the entry point and we have lowered that bar for the local authority to enter into an assessment for a franchise.
We have kept other checks and balances, because it is such a large intervention in the market. We have had quite a lot of positive comments about the franchising offer that we have put forward.
Richard Lyle
You said “franchise”, but you can only have a franchise if you are going to do the whole thing. You have said that councils cannot run a service if people object or if people are running it themselves privately or through a bus company. Where is the change for councils? I do not see any.
Peter Grant
I need to explain more clearly the different options that we have. Previously, we were talking about partnerships, and, yes, the bus operators must agree to those. For a franchise, a local authority must do a business case and prove that it has looked into all the considerations around that, and the operators do not have to agree to it. It is a power for the local authorities to go down a different route, if they wish to.
The Convener
I suspect, Richard, that when the cabinet secretary comes in, you will be grilling him, and I suspect that Peter Grant will relay to him the pressure that he is being put under here.
Richard Lyle
I apologise to Mr Grant if he feels any pressure.
The Convener
I think that he dealt with it very well. I notice that Gordon Hanning is looking nervous because he will be the next one up.
Maureen Watt
I would like to ask about the smart ticketing proposals in the bill. Given that the Scottish Government already sets smart ticketing technical standards and processes for most public transport through the national concessionary travel scheme and rail franchise contracts, what is the purpose of the smart ticketing proposals?
Gordon Hanning (Scottish Government)
You summarised it very well. We want to build on what we already have in the concessionary travel scheme and the rail franchise. We want to encourage and enable a national infrastructure: a common platform that will make it easier to introduce smart ticketing and smart ticketing products consistently across the whole of Scotland, regardless of whether it is for the concessionary travel scheme or some other part of the public transport network.
Maureen Watt
But the proposals, as far as I can see, rely on local authorities implementing smart ticketing schemes. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, have national integrated smart card schemes. We have been talking about smart ticketing and smart cards and everything for decades, and nothing seems to be happening. One of my worries is that now people just swipe their card—let us say on London transport—and do not know whether they are getting the best deal on their tickets or not. There is still little or no crossover in terms of using both the tram and the bus, for example, whereas in other countries people can use their tickets on all modes of transport.
Gordon Hanning
There is a slight difference: there is the ticketing system and then there is the infrastructure that underpins it, which is what this legislation focuses on. The ticketing products, which might exist on paper or on smart card today, are still largely a matter for operators.
Maureen Watt
How is the bill going to make things different and better for the passenger?
Gordon Hanning
We believe that it will encourage the creation of that common platform. That is what you see in any country in Europe: a consistent infrastructure for ticketing to operate on. It should make it a lot easier for operators to collaborate on the ticketing and fare system that you have just described, and also for local authorities, where there is a need and a demand, to create that multi-operator provision in an area.
Maureen Watt
To go back to my point, we have been talking about it for years and the operators have not done anything. They have not collaborated to make it better and easier for the passenger to use public transport.
Gordon Hanning
You are right. They have done a lot of stuff, but they have not maybe done it as quickly as we would like to see. That is precisely why we want to put in place the provisions in the bill—to try to inject a bit more pace into what is already happening. We want to encourage and enable the provision of a national common infrastructure, because without that we will always struggle to provide something that is consistent for passengers across Scotland.
We want to create a national advisory board for ministers, through which operators, local authorities and passenger representatives can come together and advise on the right way to develop and use prevailing technology, again with a view to making all this easier. We want to clarify the powers that are available to local authorities to set up multi-operator schemes and arrangements in their areas.
09:30Colin Smyth
I am seeking some clarity. In 2012, the Government announced that it was introducing the saltire card—a national multimodal smart card—but you are now saying that you are enabling the industry to do something. Has the saltire card effectively been binned?
Gordon Hanning
No. The card is out there and has been there for years. What we want to do is to make things progressively easier for all. In Scotland there are 200 bus operators, 13 ferry operators, a tram operator, a subway operator and five rail operators. We are trying to encourage and make it easier for them to operate on a common platform. That does not mean that we force them all to use the saltire card; some operators have chosen to develop their own version of the card. We are seeking—and we have had a lot of success already—to make all those cards, however they are branded, operate in exactly the same way.
The Convener
So, there will be a good excuse for Stewart Stevenson to bring out the six or seven cards he brings out at every committee meeting to say that he has to use them all.
Jamie Greene
That last answer really highlights the problem. There are multiple operators all running different schemes with no standardised technology. It is a very confusing picture from a consumer’s point of view. You can get multiple cards. Some people have no idea which card does what, or on which mode of transport or in which part of Scotland they can be used. The pricing models are different across every operator.
Surely the Transport (Scotland) Bill, from a policy point of view, was an amazing opportunity to do something about that and create some standardisation from the top down, through a Government-led policy that took the initiative and put an end to that hugely complex and fragmented marketplace for the consumer. Why did it not do that?
Gordon Hanning
I think that we are trying to encourage and enable that common platform.
Jamie Greene
You are setting up an advisory board and you are enabling national standards. That is not, to me, taking the lead in solving this problem.
Gordon Hanning
We would expect the operators to pay the cost of providing that infrastructure, in the same way as they would put tyres on the buses, for example, so we felt that it was important that the operators had a say in the technology and the migration. Technology develops very quickly. It is about both the operators agreeing when to introduce a new type of technology and what the migration path should be towards that new technology, and it is about operators advising the minister of their thoughts on all that. We are trying to encourage and enable that national platform with this legislation.
The Convener
Thank you very much. I fear that that is another thing on which the cabinet secretary will be pushed harder when he comes in.
I suspend the meeting to allow officials to change over.
09:33 Meeting suspended.09:34 On resuming—
The Convener
We continue our evidence session on the Transport (Scotland) Bill with Scottish Government officials. We will now look at low-emission zones and parking. Tasha Geddie is still in place and we welcome Stephen Thomson, who is head of environmental and sustainability policy; George Henry, who is the policy manager for parking; and Anne Cairns and Clare McGill, who are both solicitors.
Peter Chapman
We are on low-emission zones now, folks. As I understand it, there are two ways to operate an LEZ. You can either place a ban on certain classes of vehicle and impose a penalty for non-compliance on them if they come in, or you can impose a charge to enter the LEZ if the entry criteria are not met, which is the system that is in operation in London. Why has the Scottish Government chosen the first option?
Stephen Thomson (Scottish Government)
We asked in the consultation in November whether the penalty option or the charge option would be favoured. The penalty option was slightly more favoured than the charge option. That is the first reason for the decision: stakeholders were asking for that. Scottish ministers have also had a long-standing policy on road pricing, which is effectively what a charge would be. The powers exist for road pricing but at this point in time, the Scottish ministers’ view on road pricing is that they are not in favour. That is the second reason why the ban route was chosen.
There is a third option as well, which is essentially a ban as a form of access restriction. It prevents the dirtiest vehicles from entering a space, whereas a charge would allow those dirty vehicles to enter the space if a person was willing to pay a fee. There is a fairness and equity element in terms of going down the ban route.
Peter Chapman
I understand that. Your last bit of the answer leads me on to the next question. The effectiveness of an LEZ is dependent on the scheme design. The Scottish ministers will set out the emission standards, vehicles that are exempt and penalty charges in regulations rather than in the bill. Can you provide any indication at this point of what might be in these regulations? Do you have some detail of how the system is going to operate?
Stephen Thomson
Yes. We have outlined a series of proposals in the consultation. We felt that the parity with similar LEZ schemes across Europe, for example, in relation to emission standards, going towards a Euro 6 standard for diesel and a Euro 4 standard for petrol, would provide a basis for the Scottish LEZs to be among the most ambitious in Europe.
As you say, we have a series of regulation-making powers on things such as penalties and exemptions. We listed a number of exemptions in the consultation, including holders of the blue badge or a derivative of the blue badge, and blue-light services. We talked about vehicles that provide essential services, such as road gritters, road sweepers and so on. Other topics that have come up in discussion with businesses include vehicles that are involved in funeral services or weddings. Those are the types of topics that we would want to explore in the regulations for exemptions.
Peter Chapman
Have you any thoughts on what the penalty charges are likely to be?
Stephen Thomson
We have had thoughts. The top end of the charge was set by guidance from Anne Cairns in relation to what the maximum fine could be. We have included an option within the bill that there can be an escalation of or surcharges to the penalty so that the penalty might start at a relatively low level, perhaps akin to a speeding fine, but can escalate depending on the number of offences. That, again, is where we would want to take a regulation-making power, but we have tried to follow existing legislation, where it is already in place. Anne Cairns might want to give examples here, but something at the level of a speeding fine might be a reasonable place to begin in relation to the penalty charge, and there could perhaps be an escalation thereafter.
The Convener
Anne, do you want to say a bit more on this? There are different levels of speeding fine.
Anne Cairns (Scottish Government)
The standard speeding fine might be around £60, but we have not come to any conclusions about what the actual fine will be. It will very much be a process of taking the evidence as the bill goes through, and then ministers will make a final decision. The regulation will state the actual amount in due course.
Peter Chapman
If you are saying that, the first time that you come into an LEZ with a vehicle that should not be in an LEZ, you will be charged £60, that seems very harsh to me. That is just my comment.
Anne Cairns
No final conclusions have been come to on that. It is still a process that is being worked out. The amount will be set in the regulations.
Peter Chapman
When do you think that some of these details might be forthcoming? Do you have a sense of the timescale? It is very important that we know more about this.
Stephen Thomson
Yes. To give you a flavour of where we are at, we are starting right now to develop the outline of what regulations will look like. We do not want to be in a place where the bill goes through its due process, receives royal assent and then and only then do the regulations start being developed. That is not what the local authorities want, and it is not what we want. In terms of a rough indication of timescale, we will probably develop the outline of the regulations between now and Christmas and then, between Christmas and summer, finalise what they would look like in tandem with what the parliamentary process identifies.
Jamie Greene
Good morning to the new panel members. There is a tremendous amount of good will in the committee and probably around the Parliament for the intentions of an LEZ. However, there is also a huge amount of concern outside of the walls of this building, particularly among drivers and people who reside in potential LEZs and also among businesses that operate in LEZs, around the possibility that there may be different schemes operating—different grace periods and exemptions—on a city-by-city basis. Do you recognise some of those concerns? What are you doing to address them?
Stephen Thomson
Yes, it is a valid point that the schemes in some instances could be different. We have listened to what local authorities have asked for and they essentially ask for two things that seem to be diametrically opposed. They ask for consistency in terms of emissions standards, penalties and exemption lists, but they also ask for the powers to create their own LEZ based on either the size, the scope or the timing, which is fair enough because the local authorities are best placed to understand the air quality challenges that they have.
The point that you make about communicating to members of the public what the differences are is well made. For example, we know that Glasgow is looking at a suite of vehicles in its LEZ but if another city decides to include, for example, buses and only private cars, we have to communicate to members of the public and businesses that, for example, heavy goods vehicles or light goods vehicles are not included. That is where the work must happen during the grace periods to let those businesses and individuals know what the differences are.
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the flexibility that is allowed to determine, for example, the geographic areas of the zones, which streets are not included or the time of day, depending on the needs of that city. However, surely a scheme that means you can drive in one city but not in another will cause tremendous amounts of confusion for businesses and commuters. Can you also clarify whether it is likely that there would be exemptions for residents, by which I mean private car operators? The London scheme, for example, offers a fairly substantial discount scheme on the opt-in version of such a zone. Do you think that it is right that people who reside within LEZs should be penalised for driving their cars to and from their home simply because of where they live?
Stephen Thomson
That point about residents living in LEZs was identified during the consultation exercise. That is the reason why we have included an additional grace period in the bill. The grace period, on the face of it, is for all vehicles and then there is an additional grace period for residents who live within an LEZ. They have an additional period of time to adapt.
Jamie Greene
But a grace period has an end point. It is a temporary exemption, not a permanent exemption. Why is there only a grace period and not a plan to provide permanent exemption for residents?
Stephen Thomson
It is a case of working in tandem with how the fleet looks just now versus how the fleet might look at the end of the grace period if the maximum grace period is taken. The fleet is naturally going to evolve anyway towards a Euro 6 standard and away from the older vehicles, but you are right that there will be some residents who, even at the end of an extended grace period, will still have vehicles that are non-compliant. There will be people who will have to adapt as part of the LEZs being put in place.
09:45Jamie Greene
When you say “adapt”, what you are talking about here, for the benefit of the members of the public who are watching today’s proceedings, is that people who perhaps are stuck with older vehicles, perhaps people who cannot afford modern vehicles and rely on their vehicle, will in effect be faced with a daily fine to commute or travel around their own cities. Is that the potential scenario?
Stephen Thomson
Yes, that is one scenario.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
The next issue that we want to address is parking, and specifically parking on pavements, footpaths or footways, or however we describe them. In my constituency, there are quite a lot of streets where the road is quite narrow, the pavements are reasonably wide and it makes sense to put two wheels on the pavement. The police come to community meetings and they say to residents, “You should put two wheels on the pavement. That makes sense. It keeps the roads flowing and it keeps the pavements clear.” Can you explain to me why we are going down this road of a blanket ban, with the councils having to exempt certain roads, rather than just saying that, where there is a problem, the council would have the power to ban pavement parking?
George Henry (Scottish Government)
When we discussed this through our public consultation and with stakeholders, it was felt that a national ban would be the best approach. The bill requires local authorities to undertake assessments of their roads to determine which roads should be exempt. For the ones that you have described, these will be set out in the ministerial direction and collated in our parking standards document, which will identify which streets can be available for exemption. That would ensure that there is a consistency in assessment and implementation across the parking elements of this bill. The process of exempting streets will be set out in regulations that are made under section 44 of this bill.
John Mason
I wonder whether it would not have been easier for a council to list the streets where parking is not allowed on the pavement. Would it not be more onerous on the councils to list the streets where it is allowed on the pavement?
George Henry
From our discussions with local authorities, it was certainly felt that, because the number of streets that will be exempt will probably be lower than the number of streets where people parking on pavements is causing problems, the approach that we have taken was deemed to be an easier one for local authorities. They will promote exemptions on a smaller number of streets than they would if it were the other way around.
John Mason
To take a slightly different angle, there already is a ban on driving on pavements. I have always wondered about this because, clearly, if you put two wheels on the pavement, you are driving on the pavement. Is that not already banned?
George Henry
No, it is not. It is not illegal to park on a footway, as matters stand. It is illegal to drive on one and, granted, you have to drive on one to get your car there. Certainly, there is an issue with people parking on footways. It causes great difficulties for some road users, including vulnerable road users. That is why we are seeking to iron that problem out and make it clear that it is illegal to park on a footway.
John Mason
Moving on to the question of enforcement, I understand that in some areas it would be the council that would enforce. Am I right in saying that in some areas it would be the police that would enforce? In both cases, do they have to enforce? Would there be any penalty on a council that just ignores the new legislation and allows parking on pavements, or would there be some way to force the council or the police to enforce?
George Henry
The bill confers the powers for all 32 local authorities to enforce the new restrictions on pavement and double parking. It will be up to the local authority to identify how it wishes to carry out that enforcement but there is a commitment to an annual report that we will be putting before the Scottish Parliament to identify the successes of the bill or otherwise and identify which local authorities are carrying out their duties appropriately.
Richard Lyle
In my constituency, there are streets where the pavements are quite wide on both sides but, as John Mason said, the roads are quite narrow. There will be a problem in some areas with cul-de-sacs, where people can drive in but when they reach the hammerhead, the only way out is to reverse. Will councils have to consult regarding exemptions for pavements? Will they be able to amend the exemptions over the years? Will there be a system whereby the public—say people in a particular street—can contact or petition the council to amend and allow them to pavement park?
I welcome the bill, which will be good for people who are in wheelchairs and especially young families and people with prams. I abhor people parking on the pavement but, sadly, as John Mason said, there are occasions when you just cannot go anywhere else.
George Henry
Local authorities will undertake assessments under the provisions in the bill and, when identifying streets that can be exempt, they will be required to use our parking standards document. As I said, section 44 will confer on ministers the power to set out regulations for the process of exemptions. We are discussing that with local authorities at our parking stakeholder working group. We realise that there might be historic streets that do not necessarily lie within the criteria, and we will need to consider those as we go through the process. First and foremost, we are trying to fix irresponsible parking, but we want to work with local authorities, because they know their streets best, so that we can get the best model to fix the problem, support the policy and assist with parking provision for local authority streets.
The Convener
As part of my background reading, I looked at the document “Roads for All: Good Practice Guide for Roads”, which Transport Scotland published in July 2013, and which I am sure you know your way around absolutely. It lists footway widths and talks about ramps and blistering to allow people to identify crossover points. In light of the fact that on-street parking will be allowed in certain areas, will that document have to be rewritten so that people can move from one side of the road to the other in the situation that Richard Lyle mentioned, where it might be a requirement for people to park on pavements?
George Henry
That document will not need to be rewritten. We are working on a parking standards document with a range of stakeholders, including the local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Living Streets. We are working in partnership with them to discuss the footway widths where we can allow footway parking. The early discussions are that that would support the “Roads for All” guidance. For example, about 2m is the narrowest footway that we need. That would allow two wheelchairs or a double buggy to pass. As we develop the parking standards document with our stakeholders, we will very much take cognisance of “Roads for All” and work through it.
The Convener
My understanding is that, if there is a 2m-wide walkway on one side of a road, a 2m-wide walkway might not be needed on the other side, but good practice dictates that it should not be less than 1.5m. However, it does not stipulate whether that is on both sides or one side of the road.
George Henry
Yes, that is correct. We would look at that in working with local authorities. They are best placed to assess their streets and they know what is best for their areas. When a local authority is doing an assessment, it could allow a narrower footway on one side, provided that the crossing points remain free and that people can pass from one side of the street to the other as safely as possible.
Maureen Watt
Why does the bill not propose a ban on parking in front of dropped kerbs? That issue is particularly important for people who have mobility impairments.
George Henry
That certainly is a problem, and we are currently discussing with stakeholders which dropped kerbs could be in scope. When we are doing that, we will identify whether we can take that forward under secondary legislation. That is the current plan. Discussions have taken place. There will be a national ban on parking at known crossing points where there is tactile paving for the visually impaired, but we are looking to take that forward under secondary legislation.
Maureen Watt
So you need to distinguish between dropped kerbs that allow people to get their cars in front of their house and narrower bits where people with wheelchairs or buggies can cross.
George Henry
Yes. It is about identifying the difference between a crossing point and a domestic driveway. One of the big things that we have considered with stakeholders as we have worked through the policy is the impact of the displacement of vehicles. For instance, in many housing estates or streets, there are one-vehicle driveways but two or three-car families. There could be the opportunity for them to continue to park in front of their driveway. As long as the crossing points and known crossing points for wheelchair users or visually impaired people are still free, there will still be a safe mechanism for them to cross the street.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
We are all interested in effective legislation and we are certainly not interested in ineffective legislation. To me, section 47(6) as written could drive a coach and horses through the purposes of the bill as far as parking on paths is concerned. It states:
“The parking prohibitions do not apply where ... the motor vehicle is, in the course of business ... being used for the purpose of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or ... being loaded from or unloaded to any premises ... and the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading and in any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes.”
If we say,
“no more than ... 20 minutes”,
that will become the standard practice. In other words, the result that I see is that, if someone is trying to enforce the bill, people will say, “I’m allowed to park here for 20 minutes.” Then another vehicle will arrive to unload or collect goods, and the driver will think, “I can stay for 20 minutes.” Whereas the current law says that somebody has to be in a vehicle that is doing that—the driver, a passenger or somebody else—under the bill, they will be able to wander off.
I am concerned that footpaths will be blocked for vulnerable users, whether that is disabled people or mums and dads with prams. We are welcoming a bill to ensure that people do not park so that others can have free access but, to me, section 47 drives a coach and horses through the whole thing. If section 47(6)(c) just stopped at “loading or unloading” and we removed
“and in any event for no more than a ... period of 20 minutes”,
that would be helpful.
Jamie Greene
Why do you not try to amend it?
Mike Rumbles
I am coming to that. If the Government does not amend it, I certainly will try.
George Henry
We have been discussing that issue with stakeholders since the bill was published. You are right to point out that a delivery vehicle may park on a footway during its course of business while loading or unloading if it cannot reasonably be done without parking on a footway. Therefore, delivery drivers should first seek to find a parking space or loading bay, and only if they cannot find one can they park on the footway.
However, parking on a footway does not necessarily mean that they should be causing an obstruction. The current law is that drivers should not be causing an obstruction. We are looking to identify in the parking standards document what should be accepted or otherwise, but we are not promoting anybody blocking a footway to vulnerable users. We are trying to strike the balance between keeping pavements, footways and roads as safe as possible and allowing businesses to operate and keep the economy going.
10:00Mike Rumbles
We have the same interests. Everybody agrees with what you have just said—that is the aim. Our job is to look at problems with the proposed legislation that you present to us, and I have identified that as a really big problem. What you say is all very well but, in defence, a lawyer will turn round and say, “But the bill says people are allowed to stay here for 20 minutes. It does not say you have to allow a gap to allow somebody through; it says you can load or unload for 20 minutes, and in fact the next guy can do the same.” If we want to achieve the objective, section 47 needs to be rewritten.
George Henry
There is already primary legislation in place under which people are not allowed to cause an obstruction. The bill relates to issues less than obstruction and the other irresponsible parking methods that happen.
Mike Rumbles
Yes, but section 47(6) is a legal defence against prosecution. If I were a lawyer looking at this, I would say, “My goodness, people are not going to be prosecuted, because the law that is going to be passed will clearly allow them to do it.”
The Convener
The committee will have the chance to question other witnesses on that subject. All members probably have some sympathy with Mike Rumbles’s point. If the period is 20 minutes and someone sits in their lorry and moves it forward 1.5m, does that mean they are in a different parking space and therefore they are not causing an obstruction and the 20-minute period starts again? There are all sorts of valid questions here. It would be interesting for George Henry just to give a short answer and we will perhaps quiz more people on the issue as the evidence sessions continue.
George Henry
We are discussing the issue continually with stakeholders as part of the parking standards working group. To be clear, first and foremost, people need to try to find a car-parking space or loading bay to carry out that duty. It will be down to enforcement officers to enforce the measure efficiently and to ensure that people do not behave disreputably. I reiterate that there is current legislation that says that people should not cause an obstruction.
The Convener
I am sure that that would be easy to do where there are lots of parking enforcement officers, but it might be difficult in more remote places.
Richard Lyle
Does the bill also apply to car parks? We often go into a car park and somebody has paid the entrance fee or whatever but has stupidly parked on a pavement that is not a designated space. You might say that it is up to the company that owns the car park to do something about it. Does the bill cover that?
George Henry
No. The bill covers only on-street parking.
The Convener
Thank you for clarifying that.
I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
10:03 Meeting suspended.10:04 On resuming—
The Convener
In our third session this morning on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, we will look at road works, canals and regional transport partnerships. Tasha Geddie has sat through all three sessions, so I am not going to welcome her again, but I welcome Kat Quane, policy officer on road works; Joanne Gray, policy manager on regional transport partnerships; Chris Wilcock, head of ports, shipping, freight and canals; and Kevin Gibson and Claire McGill, who are both solicitors.
Colin Smyth
I will start by asking a question about road works. In what circumstances would you anticipate the Scottish road works commissioner using the proposed inspection powers within the bill?
Kat Quayne (Scottish Government)
I will outline the context in which the commissioner would use his inspection powers. At the moment, roads authorities can have an inspection regime for undertakers. The commissioner obviously has to look at both sectors—the roads authorities and the utilities—so he can look at either one. He can gather information, he can do specific site inspections and, at the moment, he has a limited range of compliance powers. He can issue fines, but he does not have any powers to address things on site as they arise or if there is a specific issue that needs a quick resolution. That would be the context for the use of inspection powers.
Colin Smyth
How will the compliance notice regime work in practice given the limited resources and powers of the commissioner?
Kat Quayne
A review of the Office of the Scottish Road Works Commissioner that Transport Scotland carried out in 2016 identified that he was limited in not having the powers to directly go and find evidence himself, and it identified that the office might have to be expanded to cover an inspection function. It would not necessarily be the commissioner himself who would go out and do inspections; he would need inspectors who would act for him.
Colin Smyth
How does the bill improve circumstances for disabled people when road works are being carried out? Are there any provisions in the bill that make improvements there? Also, am I right in saying that “Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice” is legally binding in the rest of the United Kingdom but is purely a code of practice in Scotland? Why is that the case and should it have been tackled in the bill?
Kat Quayne
That is absolutely right. The safety at street works code of practice is legally binding for roads authorities, highway authorities and undertakers in every other part of the UK. In Scotland, it applies only to the undertakers. I am not entirely sure of the history of why that is. Perhaps Kevin Gibson could answer, as that was before my time.
The bill puts the code on a statutory footing for roads authorities as well. There are also changes to the number of qualified operatives who are needed on a site and the type of qualification they need—the street works card, as we call it.
The Convener
You looked for help on that and Kevin Gibson almost looked away. Do you want to add anything?
Kevin Gibson (Scottish Government)
I cannot speak to the history of why the code is binding in England and Wales but not here. What I can say is that evidence of compliance with the code in Scotland is evidence that you have complied with the duties, so the converse is to some extent also the case—evidence that you have not complied with the code is evidence that you have not complied with the duties. The code has an element of a legal effect here but it is not completely binding as it is in England and Wales.
Colin Smyth
Is there a reason why we did not make the code binding as part of the bill?
Kat Quayne
The bill makes the red book, which is what we call the safety code, mandatory for roads authorities. The original safety code was endorsed by the Scottish Executive. It is a very old document. I do not know why that did not happen at the time, but the bill makes it applicable to roads authorities. The Health and Safety Executive enforces it in that way as well; that is the standard that it looks to.
John Mason
On regional transport partnership finance, I understand that, rather than the actual expenses being shared around the constituent councils, estimated costs will be used in future. Presumably, that would mean that, if expenses were slightly lower, there would be a fund left over and the partnership could carry that forward. What would happen if there were a deficit? Would the RTP carry the deficit forward or would that be dealt with in some different way?
Joanne Gray (Scottish Government)
At the moment, the bill does not provide for a deficit, and the RTPs do not carry a deficit. They are required to have a zero balance at the end of each financial year. Although in practice that seems quite difficult to achieve, what normally would happen is that any excess funds would be transferred to one of the constituent councils of a partnership and then come back to the partnership at the start of the following financial year.
John Mason
The funds are effectively lent to the council at the moment, or is that the future plan?
Joanne Gray
At the moment, the funds transfer to a particular council in an RTP and then come back. I do not know whether the transfer is a loan. I would not like to call it a loan.
John Mason
It is not that the money is handed back to, in Strathclyde’s case, the nine local authorities, and then we start again fresh in the new year. I am trying to clarify the difference between what is going to happen and what has happened in the past, but as I understand it the aim is to allow them to carry forward excess funds.
Joanne Gray
Yes. It is just to make it a little less clumsy than it is just now.
John Mason
I see.
Joanne Gray
It is just to create that extra flexibility, so that there is no transfer of funds. The funds will just sit where they are.
John Mason
The funds will be carried forward. Presumably, it is possible that RTPs will have a deficit because they have to overspend on the subway or something. In that case, will they then by 31 March have to get more money from the councils or could they carry that deficit forward and hope to make it up the following year?
Joanne Gray
Until now RTPs have not carried a deficit and we would not envisage that they would do so going forward. According to my local government finance colleagues, it is not good practice to carry a deficit. It has not happened up until now, so I cannot answer that question.
The Convener
Jamie, you had a question on this. Has what has been said sufficiently answered it?
Jamie Greene
Partially. Perhaps I could follow on from Mr Mason’s line of questioning on carrying over funds. I believe that the legislation will now enable regional transport partnerships to borrow money and by default, I suspect, accumulate debt as a result of the borrowing. Given that some of the other elements of the bill allow for greater opportunity, for example, to set up bus franchises and other types of public services, and given that RTPs are funded by local authorities, is there any worry that by giving RTPs the ability to borrow funds on the wider market, you are in effect creating an opportunity for local authorities to accumulate debt to fund infrastructure or subsidise public transport? What is the policy rationale behind that?
Joanne Gray
RTPs have had borrowing powers since the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. What the bill does is place more responsibility on them to comply with the regulations that came in in 2016. Until now we are not aware that there has been a problem with that. RTPs are required by a suite of local government finance regulations to ensure that they can afford whatever they borrow and, ultimately, they are accountable to their board, to their constituent councils and to Audit Scotland.
Jamie Greene
Are there any additional duties or changes in how RTPs will be structured, monitored and managed in future, or is the bill just tinkering around with the financials as opposed to the structures of RTPs? At any point was there any discussion around whether the bill could look at the wider issue of the success, or lack of success, of RTPs?
Joanne Gray
No, the bill does not look at that. It is really just a technical amendment to allow that flexibility. There are other pieces of work on-going at the moment, such as the national transport strategy review, that are looking at such issues and at the future of transport governance in Scotland.
The Convener
Mike Rumbles is itching to ask the next question.
Mike Rumbles
I am, convener, because I want to ask about canals. They may be at the end of this session, but they are very important. I am well aware of the work that has been done on canals running into the city here in Edinburgh and the canal festivals. They are regenerative of whole areas and it is a very positive thing that has been happening, but recently there have been problems when the canals have been blocked. In the bill, we have a section tinkering with the numbers on the board of Scottish Canals. Does the Government have any concerns about the backlog of maintenance? What about placing a duty on the board to ensure that our canals are kept open and navigable? This would be an opportunity to do that.
10:15Chris Wilcock (Scottish Government)
It is worth saying that what is in the bill is really a technical point to give ministers the flexibility to alter the structure of the board in the future if they chose to do so. When the board was set up, it was restricted to six members, mainly to take the organisation forward following separation in 2012. In discussions that we have had about some of the complexities and the opportunities facing the canals, it has been suggested that we might want to look at varying the position and creating flexibility to bring in additional expertise or indeed to reflect some of the expertise that the executive team might have. That is very much what we are looking to do in the bill.
In relation to the other things that you mentioned, the Transport Act 1962 and the Transport Act 1968 already set out how canals are supposed to operate, and they have provision on what Scottish Canals is supposed to do to keep the canals open to all users. We are working very closely with it in relation to the challenges that we have seen in recent times. Those have been partly addressed through some additional funding that Transport Scotland and the Scottish ministers have been able to give. We are also looking at how we can help Scottish Canals with funding on other areas in the future.
It is important to highlight that the work that Scottish Canals has done to identify the asset management backlog is a responsible piece of work. The assets are ageing and complex and it is important that Scottish Canals understands the work that it needs to do to make sure that the structures are there for the future.
Mike Rumbles
On a technical point, as I understand it there is no requirement in the 1962 act for the board to ensure that the canals are navigable. That is my question. Should we not be using the bill as an opportunity to give responsibility to the enlarged board for ensuring that Scottish canals are kept navigable?
Chris Wilcock
My understanding is that the existing legislation provides for a responsibility for the canals to be kept navigable.
Mike Rumbles
Does it?
Chris Wilcock
That is my understanding of how the legislation is now.
Mike Rumbles
Could the Government check that and let us know?
The Convener
It has been mentioned to various people that Scottish Canals is investing in properties such as holiday lettings and shops rather than investing in canals. It would be useful for the committee to have some feedback on that.
Chris Wilcock
Certainly, that point has been raised with us in our engagement with stakeholders, particularly in light of the challenge that we have at the moment. I have asked Scottish Canals to undertake a piece of work on this because the challenge has been put to it a number of times that it is spending money and attention on non-canal-related activities. It is important to note that the income that is generated from non-canal activities comes back in on an annual basis and grows the investment pot to support the canals going forward. I have asked Scottish Canals to do some work on that to make those points clearer to people, because I think that it is important that that is recognised.
The Convener
All businesses know that the core asset is what you invest in, not necessarily the ones that generate short-term income. I will leave it there if I may.
I thank all those who have given evidence this morning on the three panels. There are various questions that we did not get through, which is very much where I anticipated we would be at the end of the meeting. The clerks will, subject to everyone agreeing, submit those questions to Tasha Geddie, and we ask her to respond to them through the clerks.
I ask the officials to remain in place while we deal with the next item of business, because after that we will be moving into private session and it does not seem appropriate to break now.
12 September 2018
12 September 2018
19 September 2018
3 October 2018
24 October 2018
7 November 2018
21 November 2018
What is secondary legislation?
Secondary legislation is sometimes called 'subordinate' or 'delegated' legislation. It can be used to:
- bring a section or sections of a law that’s already been passed, into force
- give details of how a law will be applied
- make changes to the law without a new Act having to be passed
An Act is a Bill that’s been approved by Parliament and given Royal Assent (formally approved).
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
This committee looks at the powers of this Bill to allow the Scottish Government or others to create 'secondary legislation' or regulations.
It met to discuss the Bill in public on:
23 October 2018:
Read the Stage 1 report by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform committee published on 6 November 2018.
Finance and Constitution Committee
- the costs of the Bill
- whether there has been enough information provided about the costs
The committee questioned the Scottish Government team that looks at the costs of the Bill on 14 November 2018:
Debate on the Bill
A debate for MSPs to discuss what the Social Security (Scotland) Bill aims to do and how it'll do it.
Stage 1 debate transcript
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-16747, in the name of Michael Matheson, on stage 1 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
14:54The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
I welcome the opportunity to consider the stage 1 report on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which is an ambitious and broad piece of legislation covering a wide range of issues. The bill aims to help develop a cleaner, smarter and more accessible system for the travelling public across Scotland, and it will empower local transport authorities and others to improve journeys for the travelling public.
Members who have monitored the bill’s progress will know that it is wide ranging and aspirational but also technical and complex in some areas. Such a mix can make scrutiny challenging. I commend the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for the diligent way that it has undertaken stage 1 consideration. The extensive range of voices and viewpoints from across civic Scotland that the committee has heard from is testament to its accommodating and meticulous approach to the matter.
I welcome the lead committee’s support for the general principles of the bill and its recommendation to Parliament that it should agree to those general principles. I look forward to saying more in the course of the debate about the Government’s thinking on some of the matters that are raised in the report.
The bill’s provisions range from measures to improve bus patronage, including smart ticketing, to improving air quality in our cities, increasing the safety and efficiency of road works and addressing parking issues. It also makes some necessary technical improvements to specific areas. For example, it will ensure more appropriate financial flexibility and governance arrangements for some public bodies. In developing the bill, a collaborative approach has been taken to ensure that its measures are informed by those that they will affect. We fully intend that that engagement will continue as we develop the associated regulations.
More widely, it is crucial that we see the bigger picture and how the bill fits into it. The legislation is part of a broader transport jigsaw and must be viewed in that wider context. Although matters such as low-emission zones, an improved framework for our bus services and prohibitions on irresponsible parking will benefit many, they should not be seen in isolation. In addition to the bill, a host of other non-legislative work is going on across my portfolio to drive improvement, not least of which is our review of the national transport strategy. That wide-ranging review has involved extensive public engagement across Scotland. It is forward looking and will provide the high-level strategic and policy framework within which the measures in the bill will play out. I expect to issue a draft of the new strategy for consultation later this year.
We anticipate that the strategy will set the context for any future consideration of legislation, beyond the current measures proposed in the bill. The need for such a wider strategic perspective is something that the lead committee has raised in relation to low-emission zones. We have always been clear that LEZs have the potential to interact with a host of other transport issues, be that congestion, active travel, the improved feel of community space or the uptake of ultra-low-emission vehicles. It is in that vein that local authorities should be looking to implement such zones. The Scottish Government is aiding local authorities in that, not least by setting the strategic context that I just mentioned. Future LEZ guidance will also help to set the measures in that context, and we are taking other practical action to make our transport system cleaner, greener and healthier and to improve air quality.
I am therefore pleased that we seem to have wide political support for the principles of LEZs. Helpfully, there has been some fruitful discussion during stage 1 about the specifics that will be set out in subsequent regulations. That has covered issues such as penalty levels, the national emission standard and exemptions. Such feedback builds on the extensive engagement that the Government is having on those issues, which is running in tandem with the bill’s progression.
There have also been questions as to whether specifics on such issues should be set out in the bill. It is worth remembering that LEZs are a new provision in Scotland. The flexibility afforded by secondary legislation is therefore necessary, as it allows proper engagement on development of the detail and an ability to respond to technological changes. I will reflect carefully on the comments of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, as the lead committee, and those of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of those measures.
I turn to the bus provisions in the bill. When it comes to improving air quality, buses are part of the solution, and measures to incentivise bus services should be an intrinsic part of the wider proposals around modal shift in LEZ areas and beyond. The bill offers an ambitious new model for bus provision. The trend of declining bus patronage threatens networks across the country and we must work together to address that. However, the trend varies across Scotland, as do the causes, and I am clear that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. The bill gives local authorities options to improve bus services in their areas, which will ensure that there are sustainable bus networks across Scotland. The bill will support local authorities to meet local needs, whether they wish to pursue partnership working or local franchising or, in certain circumstances, run their own buses.
On that last issue, I am aware that there have been calls for us to widen our proposal for local authorities to run commercially competitive services. As I have previously stated, I will continue to listen to views on that as we move towards stage 2. The bill will also improve the information on bus services that is available to passengers, which will help them to plan their journeys. That will make bus travel more accessible and attractive, and we know that people want it.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is willing to look at the issue of local authorities running commercially profitable routes, but will he outline what he thinks the objections are?
Michael Matheson
The member will be aware that there are concerns in the bus industry about the impact that that could have on existing bus operators, as well as about the commercial viability of some routes. However, as I said, I am open to considering further measures that could help to improve bus services at a local level, including the issue that the member has raised, which was also highlighted by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
As well as clear information about bus services, passengers expect a simple ticketing offer. The bill will help to accelerate the implementation of smart ticketing and will support local authorities and operators to go further and faster to deliver multimodal smart ticketing arrangements, underpinned by consistent national standards. The Government is clear that partnership working between authorities and operators to address local ticketing needs is the most effective approach in a deregulated bus market. I am aware that there was support for that approach among various witnesses who appeared before the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee during its stage 1 deliberations.
I turn to the parking provisions in the bill. I am sure that we all want to ensure that our pavements and roads are accessible for all, particularly those with mobility considerations. It is therefore welcome that there appears to be cross-party support for the principle of pavement and double parking prohibitions in the bill. There was some debate at stage 1 about specifics, such as the process for exempting streets, and exemption criteria for delivery vehicles. The Government has sought to strike a sensible balance on such details. We are still listening to people’s views, and I am sure that we will hear more views this afternoon.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
There are quite a lot of streets in our cities where there is not enough room for everything that we would like to do. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, if the pavements are fairly wide and the roads are fairly narrow, it makes sense for cars to park with two wheels on the pavement?
Michael Matheson
I recognise that. Some city streets are too narrow for vehicles to park on both sides of the road and, at the same time, for vehicles to pass through. It is in recognition of that problem that the bill’s provisions would allow local authorities to exempt particular areas from the prohibition.
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
If, as the bill states, exemptions to parking prohibitions are to be made by local authorities, will they consult their local communities to come to an agreement that is best for all?
Michael Matheson
There is a provision for local authorities to undertake that process, which would include consulting local communities and other important partners such as emergency services, which have a clear interest in those matters, to ensure that they can express their views on that type of exemption process.
I am also grateful for the lead committee’s reflections that our provisions on road works
“will provide a positive framework and improve ... quality, safety and performance”,
and for its endorsement of our proposals to give regional transport partnerships more flexibility.
On the issue of canals, in our response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government has set out the wider measures that we are taking forward to improve such waterways, in addition to the provisions that are contained in the bill.
Workplace parking levies are not currently in the bill, but they have attracted significant interest in recent weeks. The Government has given a commitment to support an agreed Green Party amendment at stage 2 to create a discretionary power for local authorities to introduce those levies should they wish to do so. Our support for that amendment is contingent on the exclusion of hospitals and national health service premises. It will be a local levy and it will be a matter for local authorities to decide whether they wish to consider introducing it in their areas in future. There will be no pressure from the Scottish Government to do so.
The Scottish Government recognises that the lead committee will wish to give itself adequate time at stage 2 to scrutinise such an amendment, including by taking evidence from stakeholders. We will support the committee in whichever way we can to accommodate that requirement.
I have cantered through a range of topics, which highlights the multitude of areas that the bill touches on. I look forward to hearing the views of members from across the chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
The Presiding Officer
I call Edward Mountain to open on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
15:07Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute to the debate in my capacity as the convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
The committee’s stage 1 report on the Transport (Scotland) Bill was published on 7 March. I thank the cabinet secretary for his letter of 1 April, in which he provided the Scottish Government’s response to those recommendations.
In the limited time available, I will be able to cover only a brief selection of the issues that the committee raised in its report. It is unfortunate that we have less time available to debate the wide range of detailed and complex transport issues that the bill covers than we had last week to discuss the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill—a single-issue bill on which there was broad support across the Parliament.
The committee is aware that the Scottish Government has announced—it has reaffirmed this today—that it will support at stage 2 a Scottish Green Party amendment on the granting of powers to local authorities to introduce a workplace parking levy. The committee has agreed a timetable for stage 2 consideration that will allow us to take oral evidence on the full details of the amendment once it has been lodged. However, for the purposes of this debate, it is right that we park that issue—if members will excuse the pun—and discuss the many issues that appear in the bill as it is drafted.
Moving on to the committee’s consideration of the bill, I thank all those who gave up their time to give evidence at committee meetings and to attend conference calls. I thank those who attended an evening committee event in the Parliament and those who sent the many written submissions to the committee. I also thank the clerks, who supported the committee with professionalism at a time of a very heavy workload and a shortage of team members.
I will look specifically at the proposals in the bill, starting with low-emission zones. The committee is of the view that the effective introduction of low-emission zones will require steps to be taken in advance to provide improvements in public transport and to put in place measures such as park-and-ride facilities and improved active travel opportunities. In its response, the Scottish Government indicated that it agrees with the committee on that point and that such issues will be addressed in the LEZ guidance. We believe that that is welcome. The introduction of LEZs must be part of a co-ordinated package of measures if the behavioural change that is required is to be achieved.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s agreement with the committee’s recommendation that national consistent emission standards and exemptions should be set out in the regulations. I note that the emission standards are likely to be Euro 6 for diesel and Euro 4 for petrol. I also note that the Scottish Government agrees with the committee that nationally consistent signage should be used for all LEZs.
Finally on LEZs, the committee acknowledges in its report the financial burden that might be faced by businesses and individual motorists should they need to upgrade or replace vehicles to meet the necessary emission standards. It noted that that would be likely to present a particular challenge to those on lower incomes.
I note that the Scottish Government will create a low-emission zone support fund that will target commercial and private vehicle owners who will have the most difficulty in making the transition to LEZ-compliant vehicles. That is welcome and, in my view, it is necessary if we are to incentivise road users to comply with LEZs.
In its report, the committee acknowledged the widespread concern about the decline in bus use across Scotland. However, the committee notes the concerns that were expressed by several stakeholders in evidence that the bus service provisions in the bill are unlikely to make a marked difference in stopping the decline in bus use. The committee is concerned that, although many of those provisions are broadly considered to be positive steps, the reality may be that few of them will be taken up in practice due to the lack of financial resources to facilitate their set-up and operation.
The Scottish Government clearly disagrees with that view. Although I understand that it wants to remain positive about the proposals in the bill, the broad message that the committee received from local authorities and others was that the proposals are underwhelming and are unlikely to deliver any significant improvement. I am sure that other committee members will comment further on the bus service provisions.
On smart ticketing, the committee is concerned that the provisions to introduce a national smart ticketing standard lack ambition and that an opportunity has been missed to deliver a meaningful step change in integrated public transport. On the basis of the evidence that it heard, the committee is of the view that that can be achieved only through the introduction of a single ticketing scheme operating across all modes of transport.
The Scottish Government responded robustly on that issue, effectively ruling out such a scheme on the ground of cost, with an assertion that it would require a restructuring of the bus market. However, it was made clear to the committee that progress in that area among transport operators has been painfully slow. It remains to be seen whether, if the bill is passed, the proposals within it will result in any tangible progress being made.
Although the committee welcomes the proposals to prohibit pavement parking and double parking, it expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the exemption, which will allow 20 minutes for loading and unloading deliveries. It therefore called on the Scottish Government to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to remove the exemption and for a more appropriate and workable mechanism to be developed and included in guidance. The Government said that it considers that removing the exemption would enable loading and unloading for an unspecified and unlimited length of time. Technically, that might be the case, but that does not respond to the committee’s concerns that the exemption proposals, as drafted, would present innumerable practical and enforcement difficulties. I urge the cabinet secretary to rethink his position on that matter before stage 2.
During its stage 1 scrutiny, the committee discussed the issue of parking across dropped kerbs at pedestrian and other recognised crossing places. The committee felt that that is a
“significant ... barrier to the accessibility of urban streets”.
The committee has therefore called on
“the Scottish Government to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to prohibit”
that practice. It is encouraging that the Scottish Government is currently considering the most appropriate legislative route for addressing the issue. Nevertheless, I urge it to accelerate its considerations and to lodge a suitable amendment to complete what would be a welcome package of parking prohibitions
“which would more comprehensively enhance accessibility in urban areas.”
In the time available, I have been able only to skim the surface of the many issues that are covered in the committee’s stage 1 report. I hope that my fellow committee members will take the opportunity to discuss further elements of the report when they make their contributions.
The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill be agreed to. However, we look forward to stage 2 consideration of the many proposals that we have made for its improvement.
15:16Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to open the stage 1 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I add my thanks to the clerks and my fellow committee members, many of whom are in the chamber today. I also thank the many stakeholders whom I have met over the past few months, who have shared their views and opinions on the bill, including the transport secretary and his team, who have been very helpful in those discussions.
Since the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed, more people own and operate cars, we have seen a decrease in the patronage of our buses and the emergence of the gig economy has changed our driving habits and our economy. Equally, since 2005, there has been a renewed focus on our domestic and international obligations to tackle climate change.
At the outset, I say that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1. We agree with the general principles of what the bill is trying to achieve, although in many ways we do not think that the bill goes far enough to tackle many of the overarching issues that are faced by Scotland’s transport networks.
If someone is watching the debate and hoping to hear us discuss a groundbreaking, flagship piece of legislation that the Government has introduced, which will transform how Scotland is connected, or how the bill will radically address shortcomings in rail, road, bus, marine or aviation travel, or how the Parliament intends to revolutionise how we transport goods, people, or produce, they are welcome to stay tuned, but they may wish to change channels.
Overall, as it is currently drafted, the bill tinkers with existing legislation and proposes fairly benign new powers. It is all very necessary perhaps, but it does not exactly push the limits of policy imagination. It contains little on long-term plans to improve community travel and transport, particularly among our elderly populations and rural communities, little that develops sustainable non-concessionary travel frameworks, or anything that proposes to deliver dramatic improvements to our railways or ferries, or a radical overhaul of the state of Scotland’s roads.
That being said, and in order to be constructive, let me set out my thoughts on the bill. Part 1 of the bill deals with low-emission zones. We think that poor air quality remains an issue in our cities—it lowers life expectancy and it puts huge pressures on our health service. In those respects, we agree that there is a need for LEZs. However, significant issues have been raised about the current proposal. The committee took evidence on the issue and a number of the stakeholders with whom I have had private consultations are rightfully concerned, not least those who will be least likely to be able to afford to upgrade to new Euro 6 standard-compliant diesel cars, and not least those small businesses that need vans, which are often purchased rather than leased, to go about their business. Those who live outside the cities, in rural Scotland, who often drive diesel or agricultural vehicles and sweat their assets for longer than people who live in the cities, are also concerned. What about people who find themselves living in a zone, who will be penalised simply for going about their everyday business, taking the kids to school or commuting to work?
If public transport was universally perfect, there would be no need for a car. In an ideal world there would be no need for low-emission zones, but we live in the real world. Businesses are concerned, and we ought to listen to them. Industries, such as the bus and taxi industries, have raised concerns about the costs of operating within the zones and of purchasing compliant vehicles. An electric-powered taxi costs £60,000. The committee’s stage 1 report makes explicit reference to that. It says:
“LEZs should not be introduced unless appropriate steps are taken in advance to provide improvements in public transport provision and to put in place measures such as park and ride facilities and improved active travel opportunities”.
I agree, but that is not what it says in the bill.
Conservative members want to see some clarity about national standards. Let us leave the geography and operating hours at the local level, but let us avoid the confusion for business of having multiple distinct schemes, with conflicting standards. We would like to see a clear timetable for the introduction of the schemes, with phased implementation, to allow everybody the time to plan and transition to the new world. We would like to see appropriate incentives to encourage the take-up of ULEVs and LEZ-compliant vehicles.
Let us have a proper look at exemptions. Is it wise for disabled people, blue badge holders or other vulnerable travellers to have to pay to make vital journeys into cities for health appointments or to tackle social isolation? There must be support for residents within the LEZs, and public transport opportunities within the zones should be enhanced. We may seek to lodge amendments to that effect.
As the bill has progressed, other topics have not gained as much media attention as LEZs and parking, but they are nonetheless important. Local bus franchising is one example. There is a role for local franchising models, but that decision should not be made by anyone other than the local authority—the local authority must be fully transparent and open with local taxpayers about how their money is spent. However, I share concerns that the provision will allow them to operate only where there is an unmet need. That is severely limiting. I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary address that in his opening remarks.
In reality, how many local authorities have the money to set up depots, lease buses, hire drivers and pay into pension pots? Even if they have the money to do that, what will happen when a commercial operator comes along and says that they, too, want to operate on that route? There are many unanswered questions about the bill in that respect, and the main question is whether the bill goes far enough on local franchising.
There are some good initiatives on smart ticketing, such as the standardisation of technical standards. That is wise, but it falls dramatically short of introducing a fully interconnected ticketing network, the likes of which many countries benefit from. That is what we need, and the Government has missed a trick.
There is not much to disagree with on the issue of road works. We heed the committee’s warnings that local authority finance and resource remain a significant barrier to ensuring compliance.
One contentious issue that has arisen is pavement and double parking. We know that pavement parking is an issue in Scotland. It affects people who use our pavements; people with disabilities, people with pushchairs and people in wheelchairs or who are visually impaired can struggle to get past cars that are parked inappropriately. Equally, pavement parking is a widespread practice, which, as John Mason suggested, is a necessity on many roads. We have not talked enough about displacement: if the cars are moved off the pavement and on to the roads, where do they go?
I hear that there will be powers for local authorities to exempt roads, but how many of them have done the necessary mapping exercise, and how much time and resource do they have to do that? I do not think that the bill’s top-down approach is right.
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
I am sorry, but I have very limited time.
The best approach would be to empower local authorities to ban the practice of pavement parking where it needs to be stopped. It is all about empowering local authorities, which know their streets and communities best. The top-down approach is not the right one.
It is a shame that we do not have more time to debate the bill. In the closing seconds of my speech, I need to talk about the workforce parking levy—it would be remiss of me not to do so. I campaigned vociferously for the levy to be brought into the bill at stage 1, so that evidence could be taken and added to the stage 1 report. The Conservatives’ view is very simple: it is an ill-thought-through, regressive tax on Scotland’s workforce and we will oppose it at every stage of proceedings.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Will Jamie Greene take an intervention on that point?
Jamie Greene
I will not.
There is a lot to be positive about in the bill. We will take a constructive approach to amendments. However, there are several elements of the bill that need improvement. The stage 1 report was robust and in depth. I look forward to progressing the bill through Parliament and to taking part in constructive debates on it. I will listen to today’s speeches with great interest.
15:24Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
I ask members to imagine a transport system in which our transport agencies have the powers properly to regulate public transport in their areas and to deliver a genuinely integrated system; in which local communities can establish municipal bus companies without restrictions, putting passengers and not profit first, and reinvesting surpluses in better bus services and not shareholders’ dividends; and in which a person can board a bus and use their bank card to buy a ticket for that bus journey and the connecting train journey, through a system that calculates the cheapest fare, however many times they make the journey that week.
Members can imagine all those things, but the bill will not deliver any of them. The bill’s timidness is matched only by the timidness of the Scottish Government’s response to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report. The cabinet secretary made clear in his opening speech that the response represented just the start of the Government’s thinking on changes to the bill, rather than its final word. I welcome that. Our stage 1 report captured a range of views from many stakeholders, which deserve to be properly considered as the bill progresses through the parliamentary process.
There are aspects of the bill that I welcome. I am glad that the Scottish Government has set out a legislative framework for low-emission zones, proposed a ban on pavement and double parking and proposed an increase in the powers of the Scottish road works commissioner. I am glad that, after opposing not one but two Labour members’ bills on the subject, the Government plans to introduce some element of regulation to our bus network.
However, on too many counts, the bill lacks ambition. The mandatory minimum grace period for LEZs—and the length of the maximum period—and the lack of a clear definition of LEZ could slow down the change that is needed if we are to tackle air pollution. The loopholes in the ban on pavement parking, such as allowing 20 minutes for delivery and loading, risk undermining the aims entirely.
On buses, the bill tinkers around the edges of a failed deregulated system while our bus network is being dismantled, route by route, across Scotland. Since the Scottish National Party came to power, the number of bus journeys made in Scotland has fallen by 20 per cent and bus fares have risen by 17 per cent in real terms. There are many reasons for that decline, such as changing work patterns and growing congestion, but decisions that this Government has made have contributed.
The bus service operators grant has been reduced by 28 per cent under the SNP.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The member describes falling patronage and so on. Can he give us the equivalent numbers for bus patronage and Government support in Wales, where Labour is in power?
Colin Smyth
I can tell Mr Stevenson that there has been an 8 per cent fall in Scotland in the past few years, whereas the rate was 5 per cent in the rest of the United Kingdom. The important point is that the bill will do nothing whatever to reverse that decline. Mr Stevenson agrees with that point, because it is in the REC Committee report to which he agreed.
Another factor that has contributed to the fall in bus use has been the cuts to council budgets in recent years, which are leading to yet more reductions in support for bus services in Scotland. The bill will do nothing to reverse the decline in bus passenger numbers, and it will do nothing to drive up standards in the sector or strengthen passengers’ rights and workers’ terms and conditions.
The bill will not improve affordability or tackle transport poverty. It will not properly promote community transport. Crucially, it will not lift the ban that Margaret Thatcher introduced, which prevents local authorities from competing to run bus services. The limited measures on franchising and partnership are welcome, but we need radical changes to how buses are run in Scotland, to protect the lifeline services that are currently being axed and to stop the big bus companies simply cherry picking the most profitable routes.
That means allowing our local councils to set up and run local bus companies, to meet their communities’ needs, without the restrictions that the bill will place on them. It means ensuring that changes to bus routes will be allowed only after proper consultation with passengers and with the agreement of the traffic commissioner for Scotland.
It means putting a stop to the race to the bottom in how staff are treated. If a company wants to receive public money for delivering services, it should pay its workers a decent wage and deliver proper terms and conditions.
It means ending rip-off fares. It means not just setting up an advisory board on smart ticketing, but giving that board a legally binding remit to deliver a single ticketing scheme across Scotland and across transport modes.
It means properly investing in our buses, not imposing a £230 million real-terms cut in the council budgets that are needed to make that investment, as the Government’s recent budget does. If we believe, as Labour does, that public transport is a public service, and if we really want to improve our environment, we need to properly fund public transport.
What will not protect our environment are the proposals for a so-called workplace parking levy, particularly given that the proposals are an afterthought and are being introduced at stage 2.
John Finnie
Was that the member’s position when his councillor colleagues in Glasgow City Council and City of Edinburgh Council had such a proposal as part of their local authority manifestos?
Colin Smyth
The Parliament needs to make a decision first, because one of my deep concerns is that, under the proposals, if a car parking tax was introduced by City of Edinburgh Council, as Mr Finnie suggests, thousands of workers, including my constituents who live in Midlothian, the Borders, South Lanarkshire and Dumfries and Galloway, many of whom are on low incomes and are priced out of the Edinburgh housing market, even if they wanted to live there, would have to pay the tax because they would have no choice but to use their car to get to work. However, they and their local councillors would not have a say in whether the tax was introduced in Edinburgh, and not a penny raised would be spent on public transport in Midlothian or the south of Scotland. That is a flaw in Mr Finnie’s proposals, and I hope that we will eventually be able to see the proposals that are currently being hidden from us by the Government.
The budget deal that has been done means that someone on £124,000 a year will get a cut in their income tax at the same time as a regressive car parking charge is introduced. A company boss will pay the same amount as a company cleaner will pay, and the chief executive of a health board who is on more than £100,000 a year will be exempt, but a carer who is working in a hospice and is on the living wage will have to stump up the money.
I will quote what the trade unions have said about the proposals, so Mr Finnie might want to listen. It is no wonder that Unison says that the tax
“devalues council workers and other staff, who deliver vital services”.
It is no wonder that the GMB says that
“it’s an attack on the take home pay of workers”.
It is no wonder that Unite says that it is a
“desperate attempt to absolve the government from the funding crisis they have presided over”.
It is no wonder that the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen says that
“it’s a burden on workers”.
I make no apologies for being on the side of workers, because they are being forgotten by the SNP and the Greens. Labour will oppose the workplace parking levy, which would simply allow the rich to pay to pollute.
In supporting the principles of the bill today, we serve notice that we plan to lodge a series of amendments to improve the bill, some of which I will cover in my closing speech at the end of the debate. When we lodge our amendments, I hope that the Government will move beyond its response to the REC Committee’s stage 1 report and work across Parliament to make the very significant improvements that the bill needs.
15:32John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
As colleagues have done, I thank the people who have contributed to the bill—the witnesses, our staff and the many organisations that have provided briefings. At decision time, the Scottish Green Party will support the general principles of the bill.
A transport bill should be seen as an opportunity and should provide a longer-term vision. It should provide policy coherence not just within but beyond the transport portfolio. However, I get no sense that the Scottish Government is crusading in that regard.
The cabinet secretary said that the bill is “aspirational” and he talked about a “transport jigsaw”, but I prefer the approach of the Poverty Alliance Scotland and Oxfam, which posed the question what would an ideal transport system look like. Some of the provisions in the bill would clearly contribute to an ideal transport system, but we are way short of achieving such a system. This is a piecemeal bill that is conservative in outlook and will be amended.
The cabinet secretary mentioned a new national transport strategy, which is welcome. I look forward to seeing it: I am sure that there will be a lot of interesting contributions in it. Transform Scotland’s submission on the bill talked about the opportunities to address, for example, congestion, which all my colleagues acknowledge is an issue. What does not affect congestion is the means of propulsion of a vehicle. Everyone was enthusiastic about replacing petrol with diesel, and then replacing diesel with electricity, but that is not the answer.
In the bill’s policy memorandum, the Scottish Government says that
“Transport is a key facilitator for societal improvement and cohesion, therefore the Bill will have a positive impact on the Scottish Government’s purpose to create a more successful country”.
I say, on the basis of the bill that is in front of us, that that is a significant leap, because far too many of our transport policies reinforce the status quo. Under the bill, the market will still prevail when it comes to bus transport. It will be a case of private profit and public penalty, with hard-pressed local authorities being able to pick up only the scraps.
Road building is the transport priority of the Scottish Government and other parties. That is part of the on-going concession to the motoring lobby. If we concede to the motoring lobby, we ignore the needs of the 30 per cent of households who do not own a motor car. We know from the Scottish Government’s facts and figures in the policy memorandum that buses contribute about 5 per cent of road transport emissions, whereas cars contribute 60 per cent of them. We know, too, that three quarters of public transport journeys in Scotland are undertaken by bus.
Much is made of Lothian Buses. I am delighted that it now has its 100-seat buses on the go. Because the company is publicly owned and run, the beneficiaries of Lothian Buses are the residents of the city of Edinburgh and the surrounding areas. Buses are vital in enabling people to go to work, school, college, hospital or the shops, or to visit friends and family. As has been said, people face cuts to routes, poor services and fare hikes.
Patronage has been declining for decades, so it would be entirely wrong to lay all the blame at the door of the present Government. Bus use has been going down since the 1960s, and mention has been made of many of the reasons for that. Transport Scotland—that was a Freudian slip; Transform Scotland cites the KPMG research on the decline in bus patronage, which talks about congestion and its impact on journey times, reliability and cost; the impact of parking; lifestyle changes, which have been mentioned by others; the relatively low cost of car use; and the decline in revenue for the bus industry from the Government and the rising costs.
Bus priority measures and low-emission zones would help. There has been negative talk about low-emission zones, but there has been little talk of the 40,000 lives in the UK that are lost every year as a direct result of poor air quality. Poor air quality is not a problem only in the centres of our major cities. I constantly remind residents in Inverness, where I live, that one of its streets has such poor air quality that it has to be constantly monitored. Therefore, it is clear that the idea of encouraging more people to drive into towns and cities does not make sense. Progressive countries are seeking to have vibrant town centres in which the motor car does not rule, and in which people can live, work and enjoy themselves.
When it comes to the workplace parking levy proposal, there is a danger that we could get bogged down in discussing hypotheticals. We have already heard rank hypocrisy from two of the parties in Parliament on the issue, and I dare say that that is likely to continue.
The example of bus use in Edinburgh is a very fine model. Edinburgh bucks the trend in many respects—it does so not just in relation to ownership, innovation and the range of routes and services that are available, but in relation to the nature of the passengers who use the buses. In other parts of Scotland, buses are used by poor people and cars are used by people who have money. That is why assistance has been given to the motoring industry for decade after decade, at the expense of the bus industry. We know that, in Edinburgh, a wide range of people use the bus network.
The Poverty Alliance and Oxfam talk about the critical role that transport plays in the lives of people who experience poverty, both in supporting their ability to increase their income and in representing a significant and important cost. Affordability is important.
The bill has many positive aspects, but it lacks ambition. The Scottish Green Party will seek to inject some ambition at stage 2.
15:38Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
I state at the outset that I believe that the Transport (Scotland) Bill is important, and the Liberal Democrats will support it at decision time.
The Government has great intentions. In the bill, it tries to address some major transport issues, including the introduction of low-emission zones, the state of our bus services, national ticketing arrangements and banning of pavement parking. What it does not do—so far—is address the contentious issue of a workplace parking charge. As we have heard, that is missing from the bill.
John Finnie
Will Mike Rumbles give way?
Mike Rumbles
Oh, come on! I am only 30 seconds into my speech.
We are told by the Government that the issue will be considered at stage 2, even if it was not considered at the important stage 1 evidence-gathering sessions.
John Finnie rose—
Mike Rumbles
I will be more than happy to give way, but not just yet.
I turn first to low-emission zones. If we are serious about creating effective low-emission zones in our cities, we must ensure that steps are taken to improve public transport provision in the areas that would be affected before the zones are introduced. Although the Government agrees with that, it has basically said, “Over to you, local authorities.”
We must also ensure that there is consistency across the country on which vehicles may enter an LEZ, in order to avoid confusion and to encourage compliance with regulations. I am pleased that the Government accepted that point in its response to the committee’s stage 1 report.
I now turn to the actions that will be needed in the bill to arrest the general decline in bus use. Contrary to what Mr Finnie says, it is not just poor people who use buses; I use buses every day. Lots of people use buses, not just the poor.
John Finnie
Will the member give way on that point?
Mike Rumbles
I will not, just now.
The bill should be a great opportunity to tackle decline in bus use. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the cabinet secretary that the Government has been ambitious on the matter. I agree with John Finnie that it is not exactly a “crusading” bill.
On one hand, the Government wishes to amend the Transport Act 1985 to allow local authorities to set up their own bus services. On the face of it, that is a very good idea. However, on the other hand, we are in the curious position in which the Government is saying to our local authorities, “You can set up your own bus company, but there aren’t any more resources available for you to do it, and by the way, you can only run your buses on unprofitable routes.” If those routes were to become profitable, the authorities would have to hand them over to commercial bus companies. What local authority is going to do that? We asked the question in committee and we are still waiting to hear an answer. I cannot see any local authority taking up that offer.
In our view, that is a missed opportunity. The proposal in the bill looks good, but on detailed examination it appears that nothing will change—to paraphrase someone else. Franchising seems to offer a better way forward. However, I am not convinced about the need for an independent panel to oversee local transport authorities. Local democratic control of the process is important, and I am not convinced that an additional hoop for local authorities to jump through is the right approach.
In the short time that is left to me, I will focus on the part of the bill that deals with pavement parking and on the as yet unseen proposal for a workplace parking charge.
The ban on pavement parking is most welcome. However, I have real concerns that the Government has provided a get-out clause in section 47(6)(c), on “Exceptions to parking provisions”, which will for the first time make it legal to obstruct the pavement, for a period of 20 minutes, when loading and unloading. That one provision means that in reality, the attempt to ban obstruction of our pavements will be hopelessly ineffective.
Jamie Greene
Is it therefore Lib Dem policy that there should be no exemptions to the ban on double parking? If so, how on earth is Mike Rumbles expecting to get in and out of taxis?
Mike Rumbles
I am talking about obstruction of pavements.
In our report, the committee makes it clear that it is concerned that the
“20 minutes for loading and unloading of deliveries may have the unintended consequence of creating a national exemption for pavement parking by commercial vehicles.”
Can people imagine how it would be impossible to enforce the law when vehicles are allowed to load and unload like that? In our view, the proposed exemption makes a mockery of the intention behind that provision, so I urge the Government to think again.
Michael Matheson
Can Mike Rumbles clarify whether his view is that there should be no exemption at all or that the 20-minute period is too long for the exemption?
Mike Rumbles
The evidence that we have received in committee is that whatever amount of time is put in the bill, it will be impossible to enforce. At the moment, the law says that vehicles cannot obstruct the pavement.
Michael Matheson
So, does Mike Rumbles want a ban?
Mike Rumbles
That is exactly right. However, if the minister wants to say that there could be an exemption if a certain amount of space was left on the pavement, that would be another matter.
I want to address the unique situation we are in in respect of the proposed workplace parking levy. The Scottish Government will whip its MSPs to support an amendment to the bill that its MSPs have not even seen.
John Finnie
Will the member give way?
Mike Rumbles
I would love to, if I had time.
The Presiding Officer
I am afraid that there is not much time—you have a minute left, tops, Mr Rumbles.
Mike Rumbles
I am sorry, but I cannot take an intervention, as I am in my last minute.
No member of the committee has seen such an amendment, and I understand that not even the Green MSPs have seen it, although it is a Green proposal.
The fact is that the majority of members—that is, all the Scottish National Party and Green members—have been told that they must vote for the amendment when it eventually comes to the committee. No matter what evidence is presented, no matter what drafting problems might be found and no matter what unintended consequences might be seen as a result of detailed scrutiny of the legislation, it will just be voted through by the committee.
I have a lot of respect for the cabinet secretary—I consider him to be a responsible minister, and I do not blame him for something that has been foisted on him—but that is no way to pass legislation. A responsible Government would not behave in that way. I never thought that our strong committee system, as established in 1999, would ever end up being misused in such a way.
The Presiding Officer
We now enter the open part of the debate. I call Stewart Stevenson, to be followed by Peter Chapman.
15:45Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I declare my honorary presidency of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, which has a keen interest in the topic before us.
I will start with the Labour Party’s desire for perhaps every council in Scotland to take over the running of bus services and some of the financial implications of such a move. I have previously talked about the financial implications of Labour’s proposals for bus passes for the under-25s, and these proposals are equally improbable. The general principle is that, if a franchise is taken away from a business, that business must be compensated not with one year’s profit but with one year’s revenue. That is £700 million or £800 million straight away.
Next, we should take a look at the accounts of Lothian Buses—which is, I should immediately say, an excellent company. Indeed, 100 years ago, my great-uncle Alex was the cabinet member of Edinburgh council with responsibility for it, so it is all probably down to him. What is the capitalisation for Lothian Buses, which covers about 10 per cent of Scotland’s population? The answer, which can be found in the accounts as at 31 December 2017, is £147 million. If I factor that up—which I accept is a very crude way of working and is open to being criticised, but I have nothing better—we get a figure of £1.5 billion. If we then add the £700 million, we are talking about £2.2 billion.
I accept that that is the ceiling, which we certainly would not reach and could not exceed, but it illustrates the general point that, although there are a lot of numbers to look at, there has been almost no talk about those numbers. There is, of course, profit—the dividend comes back—but we need the capitalisation in the first place. It is also worth saying that a local authority would need to buy vehicles either from existing bus companies or from elsewhere, and I suspect that the existing bus companies would not give it a huge discount, given that it would be, in effect, a forced sale. The Labour Party is perfectly entitled to pursue its proposals, but I urge it to produce some numbers based on something more than my—to be blunt—20 minutes of research using the accounts of Lothian Buses—which, I repeat, is an excellent company that I use from time to time with my bus pass.
Colin Smyth
The member has, in effect, slated the idea of local authorities being able to set up bus companies in an unrestricted way, but does he support the Government’s plan to allow them to set up such companies only to meet unmet need? If so, exactly how many local authorities does he think are going to do that?
Stewart Stevenson
I am very clear that the Government’s proposals are good and worthy of support, and there are other proposals from the Labour Party to which I must say to the member that I am not closing my mind. Nevertheless, I must point out to him that, to gain support from across the Parliament, he will have to provide some numbers for the investment and the capitalisation that would be required as well as for the liabilities that would be taken on, particularly in relation to pensions as people were brought across from commercial companies under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. I simply urge the member to produce some numbers, because he might then persuade more of us who have yet to be persuaded.
On the bus improvement partnerships, it is fair to say that the previous voluntary and compulsory partnerships have not delivered as I think we had all hoped when we passed the previous legislation. However, I know that the bus companies are cautiously supportive of the new proposals, which is only reasonable, and I am certainly prepared to be cautiously supportive of them, too.
I think that we can do more on bus lanes. It should be compulsory for all bus lanes to operate 24 hours a day. We should also enforce them better. Once we do that, bus journey times will be consistent and people would rely on them more.
On parking, it is important that we respect the needs of those with reduced mobility, particularly those who are blind, who may walk into vehicles that are parked on pavements because they simply do not see them. Dropped kerbs are an issue for blind people, too, because they need a clear delineation between pavement and road.
On loading and unloading, I make a rather obvious suggestion: someone should be able to load and unload only if they have an indicator on their windscreen that is adjusted to show at what time they parked the vehicle. That is done in other countries, by the way—there is nothing particularly novel about that.
Mike Rumbles
Will the member take an intervention?
Stewart Stevenson
I am in my last minute—do forgive me.
In conclusion, I will mention the workplace parking levy. Like others, I have not seen the proposed amendment, and the whips have not yet approached me to tell me what I have to say or do on the subject. However, I will say this: there are different ways of introducing such a levy. I encourage John Finnie to consider that I am reluctant to support any measure that puts a cost on individual citizens but I might be prepared to support a measure that puts the cost on those who provide the parking. In other words, if the charge is on companies, that is fair enough, but if the charge is on individuals, that is a much more difficult ask for me.
I have no hesitation in saying that I will support this excellent bill come decision time tonight.
15:51Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)
Like my REC Committee colleagues, I thank the clerks and everyone who attended the committee during evidence sessions to help us to write our stage 1 report.
It is clear that, across the chamber, although we all appreciate what the bill tries to do, on the whole, it lacks ambition and, if it is to achieve its aims, it will need to be amended as it proceeds.
I agree with the bill’s general principles. Climate change and air quality have been discussed numerous times in the chamber over the past two weeks alone, and those are key drivers of the bill. The bill is large, covering six main aspects relating to transport. Time does not allow me to comment on all six, so I will discuss low-emission zones and bus services.
Part 1 would create a legal right for local authorities to establish, operate, amend and revoke low-emission zones. That key instrument is designed to reduce congestion and improve air quality in Scotland’s four main cities, including, of course, Dundee and Aberdeen, which are in the North East region. A low-emission zone would restrict vehicles in the area to those that met specified emission standards, and anyone driving a car in an LEZ that did not meet the standard or that was not exempt would be fined. However, the bill lacks clarity. A clear definition of what an LEZ is and what its objectives should be are needed. It will be necessary for the Scottish Government to lodge an appropriate amendment at stage 2 to bring that clarity.
The effective introduction of LEZs will require improvements to public transport provision. Measures such as park-and-ride facilities and improved active travel opportunities will need to be put in place. Educating the public about why a zone is important and the benefits that it will deliver will be essential to getting drivers to buy in to the concept. There must also be a robust appeals process to address queries on penalties and circumstances when drivers require to access the zone in an emergency. To avoid confusion and encourage compliance, there must also be consistency across the country about which vehicles can enter an LEZ.
The regulations must clearly set out minimum technical emission standards. Standardised signage and a comprehensive package of information must be provided by local authorities at all stages of introduction, to allow people sufficient time to prepare for the changes. There will also be a cost implication for business and individual motorists should they need to upgrade their vehicles. As is often the case, that would impact most heavily on those on lower incomes.
Part 2 addresses issues to do with bus services and focuses on concerns about the long-term decline in bus use across Scotland. That decline is being driven by many factors including the reduction in direct bus support in rural areas and congestion in towns. The lack of appropriate infrastructure such as bus lanes is leading to slow average speeds and long and slow journeys. The current provisions in the bill to allow councils to run their own bus services will not, in my opinion, deliver. We heard, during evidence sessions, that few local authorities are likely to have the financial resources or the expertise to take advantage of the options that are set out in the bill. Indeed, Aberdeenshire Council has recently axed several services in rural areas due to a lack of funding.
The bill would amend the Transport Act 1985 to allow a local authority to provide local bus services where there is an unmet public transport need. The committee felt that that was too restrictive and recommended an amendment at stage 2 to allow greater flexibility. I disagreed with that, however, because, if councils get involved where there is already adequate bus provision, they may trigger a bus war with the company that is already supplying the services, and bus wars never end well.
The bill also proposes replacing statutory bus quality partnerships with bus service improvement partnerships, which involve two elements. That change is generally welcomed, but local authorities question whether they will be able to join such a partnership due to constraints on time and resources. The Scottish Government has, thankfully, provided further information that clears up some of the confusion about how BSIPs will work in practice and how they will differ from the previous scheme. However, that clarity is lacking in the bill as it is drafted.
Another initiative that the bill would allow is bus service franchising. However, it was felt that, in practice, only a small number of local authorities would have the time or resources to establish a framework. It is obvious to me that many of the schemes for bus services that are on offer in the bill will be taken up only if the Government is prepared to put additional funds at the disposal of councils.
Other sections of the bill that I have not had time to discuss cover smart ticketing schemes, pavement parking, road works and canals. We expect to work with stakeholders during stage 2 to further amend those sections as appropriate. There is also the workplace parking levy, which is due to be added to the bill at stage 2. It will evoke much debate in the committee, and the Conservative Party will oppose it. We can never support taxing people to drive to and park at their work. It will be interesting to see how Mr Lyle responds when we discuss that in committee.
The bill has merit, but it is by no means ready to be implemented as legislation. I am committed to working with all committee members at stage 2 to scrutinise all amendments that will strengthen and improve the bill and provide more guidance to local authorities and greater reassurance to the public and small business owners.
15:58Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
As the cabinet secretary said, this is a wide-ranging bill, covering a range of distinct policy areas. However, I agree with members who have said that it is not nearly ambitious enough.
I will focus my remarks on public transport and those sections of the bill relating to how the bus market in this country operates, because Scotland’s bus market is broken. Bus services are in decline and the deregulated model has failed. Instead of seeing a competitive market for bus services in which fare-paying passengers are in the driving seat, a patchwork of local monopolies has emerged across the country.
Since 2007, the total number of bus journeys is down by almost 100 million, and 64 million vehicle kilometres have been stripped out of our bus network. Meanwhile, fares keep rising, doing so more in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. In fact, the relative cost of bus travel has increased more than any other mode of land transport over the past 30 years, and by more than double the retail prices index.
It is clear that we need radical change. It is also clear that only where bus services are run on different principles do bus operators buck the trend, with higher passenger satisfaction, slower rates of decline and more profit reinvested in the bus network—in London, where the bus market is regulated to a high standard, or right here in Edinburgh, as we have heard, where Lothian Buses is publicly owned and democratically accountable.
The Scottish Government says that the purpose of part 2 of the bill is to ensure that local authorities
“have viable and flexible options to improve bus services in their areas.”
If that is to mean anything, those options must include a realistic route to collective ownership. Local government must have the power to challenge and to replace the broken and failed deregulated system. Councils and communities must be empowered to form democratically controlled operators and to work with community transport organisations. Scottish Labour members of the Scottish Parliament will seek to amend the bill to strengthen Scotland’s bus laws, make municipal and common ownership a reality, promote community transport, recognise that bus routes are essentially community assets that should be protected as such, and give the passengers and communities who depend on public transport a real say. We should have a people’s bus service that is run for passengers, not profit.
If members want to know why that is so important, I will give them an example from my region. Changes by Glasgow CityBus will see the 142 Bishopbriggs circular service withdrawn because of a commercial decision that has been taken by a private operator. There has been no consultation or engagement with the community. The problem is that there are plenty of hurdles that transport authorities have to jump in order to provide a subsidised service, but apparently none for privately owned operators who seek to withdraw bus services entirely. Local councillor Alan Moir, who argues that the 142 service should be retained, tells me that 70 per cent of people who use the lifeline service are concession card holders. The deregulated market pays no regard to the social impact of withdrawing the 142 bus from this community and many others. That is why we have to shift power from the owners of the bus companies to our communities, as Colin Smyth has said.
Scottish Labour will seek to ensure that the hurdles to providing subsidised services through local government are not in place in relation to municipal ownership. Local authorities should be allowed to run services as a matter of principle, and not just in instances of unmet need. That would allow other parts of the country to benefit from the successful Lothian model, where profits are reinvested. It would also allow local, publicly owned bus companies to compete freely for any service or franchise that may be created in future. I have long supported London-style bus franchising powers—which I believe should be granted automatically—coming to local government in Scotland. Just as the Scottish Government should provide a realistic route to common ownership, it should provide one to a London-style system.
On the issue of funding, there have been substantial reforms to the bus service operators grant in England and Wales: £93 million is now paid directly to Transport for London in the regulated market there. As a nation, Scotland already subsidises the bus industry to the extent that 45 per cent of operators’ income comes from the public purse. In addition to funding local government fairly, the Scottish Government should review its funding for bus services to ensure that the provisions in part 2 of the bill are viable.
Every Scottish Labour MSP stood on a manifesto that promised that we would make it
“cheaper and easier to get to work.”
It is for that reason that Scottish Labour welcomes any progress on smart ticketing and integrated public transport. There should be a single multimodal smart ticketing system that can be used across all modes of public transport in Scotland. It is for the same reason that we believe that we cannot support a workplace parking levy. As Colin Smyth said, that is a regressive levy that workers would not be able to avoid and that would hit low-paid workers the hardest.
Climate change is one of the great challenges of our time, and vehicle emissions in our city centres are a public health concern, but the solutions do not have to be complicated. We already know what the answers are. What is required is a modal shift towards public transport. Low-emission zones must not exist in isolation. Better bus services will not just enhance public transport; they will also help us to reduce vehicle emissions.
For all those reasons, we must seek to strengthen the bill at stage 2 to assert the importance of public transport as a public service.
16:04Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
I am not a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, but I appeared before its predecessor, and the then Local Government and Regeneration Committee, on a number of occasions in connection with my proposed responsible parking bill, which I introduced as the Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill. I thank those committees for listening to me. I also thank all those who gave evidence on the Transport (Scotland) Bill or who worked on it—not just on the parking aspect—very intensively.
We have been pushing for a responsible parking bill, or for the issue to be included in a transport bill, for about 10 years, so I am delighted to be here to talk about the bill. I thank former MSP Ross Finnie who first tried to introduce such a bill about nine years ago, Joe FitzPatrick—whose bill I took over—and the many people and at least 20 charities and organisations, including lots of disability and social care charities, that came together with Living Streets Scotland in the responsible parking alliance, which did an enormous amount of work to help me when I was developing my bill. My bill had a very large number of responses—one of the biggest—for a consultation on a bill.
I have listened to the various discussions about the bill and I agree with a number of the committee’s recommendations, particularly with regard to the amendment on dropped kerbs—I fully endorse what the committee has to say about that. My original bill included not just parking but the issue of dropped kerbs, which desperately needs to be looked at. I will give members a little bit of history about the first stage of my bill. Believe it or not, this Parliament did not have the powers—not only when Ross Finnie and Joe FitzPatrick were working on their proposed bills—to introduce any bills about blocked kerbs, dropped kerbs or responsible parking, as those issues were not covered in the 1998 or 2012 Scotland Acts. For one reason or another, they could not be included in any form of transport bill. I thank the Scottish Government—I believe that it was Derek Mackay, in particular—for introducing the Transport (Scotland) Bill and including in it the issues of my bill. That is fantastic, and it came about as a result of the Smith commission. It has been a long road to get to the point at which we can look at this properly.
Members talk about fines and so on, but I never envisaged the bill as being punitive. It should be educational, so that it teaches drivers that pavements are for people, not cars. I am looking forward to stage 2 of the bill and I hope that there will be an educational element to it, so that there is some form of education—whether on TV or elsewhere—to let drivers and car owners know that it will be coming into force. I do not want it to be punitive; I do not believe that there is a huge number of irresponsible, could-not-care-less, selfish drivers out there. Most of them are responsible.
It is just a matter of educating people about what can happen. We heard in evidence about a blind gentleman who was walking along the street with his white stick, happened to tap a car that was parked on the pavement and the stick broke. That gentleman was left stranded on the pavement for hours until somebody came along. There is the issue of people taking their kids to school or nursery in a pram or buggy and having to go on the road. That is dangerous and it should not be allowed to happen. People must come before cars and, in response to the questionnaires that went out, 95 per cent of people were in agreement with that.
Pavements are for people and roads are for cars, and it is time that people were educated about that. That is why the dropped kerb issue is important. If somebody has parked on the dropped kerb, people who are disabled, blind, elderly or have kids in prams cannot walk along the pavement and cross the road at that point. It is about being sensible.
I thank members of the committee for the amount of work that they have put into the issues, and for putting up with some of the evidence that I brought to them. I understand about having to load and unload, which was mentioned by the Road Haulage Association. The subject was also raised at one of the committee meetings at which I gave evidence. There are, however, areas where it says, “No loading” or, “Only loading”, so it is the policing of loading that is important. If people are getting something delivered, of course it has to be delivered to that place. Shops have to get deliveries, but it has to be done sensibly so that the delivery vehicles are not left across the whole pavement. That means education more than anything.
Not being a member of the committee, I am grateful to be able to speak in the debate. I look forward to stage 2 and stage 3, and to having responsible parking so that people can walk on the pavements.
16:10Donald Cameron (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
I am grateful to be able to contribute to this stage 1 debate, particularly given that many people who live in the Highlands and Islands see public transport as a lifeline service, not just as an alternative to other modes of travel. Indeed, many rural and remote communities rely especially on robust and timely public transport and infrastructure to carry out daily tasks, get to work, attend hospital appointments and connect with friends and family. Whether it is people in our island communities who need a ferry service that runs on time and has enough space and capacity for passengers and vehicles or good local bus services to connect people from rural communities to Scotland’s major cities, strong transport links are plainly good for society and the economy.
As Scottish Conservative colleagues have commented, we support the general principles of the bill and, as many of my colleagues have intimated, we feel that there are a lot of positive elements in the bill, as well as some missed opportunities. In the time that is available to me, I want to focus on a particular area that I feel the bill could address slightly more: accessible transport and the needs of passengers suffering from disability.
Accessible transport is vital for many people across Scotland, particularly elderly and disabled people, but it is also important for other people, including parents travelling with young children. The experience of travel is important, too. Travelling to a station or bus stop, interacting with the surroundings, purchasing tickets and using various facilities are all elements of the travelling experience that must be viewed through the prism of accessibility.
I want to cover a few of those elements in greater detail. I had the benefit last year of hosting a round-table discussion for stakeholders, including the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance, Bus Users Scotland, and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, at an event in the Parliament that I organised. The former transport minister Humza Yousaf attended, and I place on record my thanks to him for the interest that he showed in this issue. There were about 20 delegates from a multitude of organisations, who had different ideas, considerations and views on how the accessible transport experience in Scotland should look in the short and long term. It was a very valuable experience, and I had hoped that some of the suggestions might have been carried forward.
For example, one issue that arose at the round-table event was the design of vehicles. I heard various concerns about step access, the size of disabled buttons on new train stock, restrictive loop systems and poorly designed access to toilets. As a result, it may be that one of the things that can be considered at stage 2 is the issue of vehicle design.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission said in its submission on the bill that it recommends
“that disability access is named as a service standard to which all proposed vehicles used are subject to”.
In its summary of recommendations and conclusions, the REC Committee stated:
“the ability to access transport can play a fundamental role in how a person can contribute to and participate in society. It notes the suggestions made on the bill from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and asks the Scottish Government to reflect on and respond to these in detail before Stage 2 of the Bill.”
I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government listens to that recommendation and acts on it, because it is crucial that people have confidence on the issue in the future.
I am also particularly concerned about this issue because of a local aspect to the matter, which involved the resignation of Arthur Cowie from the chairmanship of the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance over the redesign of the trains operating on the west Highland line. I know Arthur well, as we worked together last year in organising the round-table event that I mentioned. He is incredibly passionate about accessible transport, and his resignation from that role should be noted. In an article in The Scotsman in February, Arthur said:
“Recent actions by ScotRail and Transport Scotland have made me realise I have been wasting my time over the last 40 years in trying to achieve accessible travel, and have been played for a fool by the transport authorities over this period.”
I find that to be a particularly concerning indictment, and I hope that the Government listens to those views with respect to the bill.
I am concerned that the issue of cars parking across dropped kerbs has not been adequately addressed. The issue was mentioned by Sandra White and other members, and by Edward Mountain on behalf of the REC Committee. Apart from the obvious problems that parking across dropped kerbs can cause for most road users, it is particularly inconsiderate and problematic for many elderly and disabled pedestrians, who rely heavily on open dropped kerbs. I welcome the fact that the REC Committee report states:
“a prohibition of parking across such formally recognised crossing points (as distinct from residential driveways) would provide a package of measures which would more comprehensively enhance accessibility in urban areas.”
Again, I hope that the Scottish Government takes cognisance of that.
The Scottish Conservatives support the bill at stage 1. We agree that there is a need to adopt new practices and to ensure that transport meets our environmental commitments and we have a long-term plan that is fit for Scotland today and beyond. As a party, we will scrutinise the bill as it goes forward. As my colleagues who have spoken thus far have suggested, although there are areas of the bill that can be improved, we generally support it.
For my part, I hope that greater consideration will be given to accessibility issues, so that Scotland can lead the way in that crucial area. Ultimately, every individual who uses public transport in Scotland should have the same choice, freedom and dignity to travel. I hope that, as the bill progresses, we can make that happen.
16:16John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
First, I should say that I am more than happy to support the bill. It covers a number of areas, and I will focus my remarks on pavement parking and the workplace parking levy.
There is no question but that we have a problem with pavement parking, which is when a car is parked fully or partly on a pavement to the extent that a wheelchair or pram could not get past. That is obstruction and, although the police have the power to enforce the law on that, in practice that seldom happens. In an ideal world, there would be plenty of space for completely clear pavements, lanes for cycling, space for parking and plenty of room for large vehicles to pass on the road itself. Unfortunately, many roads in Glasgow and elsewhere do not have space for all that. My fear is that forcing cars entirely on to the road surface would cause obstructions for public transport and emergency vehicles and so on. I do not think that any of us wants that.
Although there is a problem at the moment, there are also many considerate drivers who put two wheels on the pavement in order to avoid blocking either the road or the pavement. In fact, that is sometimes encouraged by council road markings that are designed to ensure that the road itself does not become blocked. I wonder, then, whether some compromise is needed. Perhaps it would be better for the rule to be that at least 1.5m of pavement must be left clear of vehicles, which would allow adequate space for wheelchairs and prams. If the pavement was less than 1.5m wide, no vehicle wheels would be allowed on the pavement at all. That would also have the advantage of being cheaper than the proposals in the bill. Although the bill would allow exemptions, I suspect that, because of the cost of introducing them, councils would resist doing so as widely as they should.
I am also concerned that, whatever the rules are, they are unlikely to be widely enforced. Experience in Glasgow already shows that, although parking on double yellow lines or parking that causes an obstruction is against the law, in many cases the law is not enforced. The bill proposes powers for local authorities to enforce the law, and the Government says on page 26 of its response to the stage 1 report that that is a duty. However, I fear that that will not happen in practice. Linked to enforcement is the question of whether fines are sufficient for councils to cover their costs, such as the cost of paying wardens.
Sandra White
Enforcement was one of the areas that I was going to comment on. I am also worried about what will happen if we make it known that anyone can park on the pavement, even if it is just with two wheels. There are large stretches of road in my constituency, which covers the city centre, and I would worry that there would be cars constantly parked on the pavements, which would mean that anyone with a pram or a disability would have a long distance to walk before they could get off the pavement. I do not want to encourage people to park on pavements at all.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)
I will give Mr Mason his time back.
John Mason
That is kind; thank you.
I accept that there are differences in different parts of the city. Streets in the city centre, such as Hope Street, where I have seen cars parked on double yellow lines that are not enforced, are slightly different from most of my constituency, which is further out. However, we must somehow find a compromise.
The second main topic that I will focus on is the workplace parking levy. As Mike Rumbles said, there are unusual circumstances in that the workplace parking levy has become part of the budget agreement and we expect to see an amendment to introduce it at stage 2. It is not normal to see such a major new issue appear at stage 2, and it is not ideal. Stage 1 is when a committee carries out a thorough examination of the main features of any bill, and I believe that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee carried out such an examination of the bill as introduced. There was an argument that, in order to take evidence on the levy, the committee could have postponed the completion of its report, but it was decided to press ahead with stage 1 and deal with the amendment as part of stage 2.
In principle, I am comfortable with a levy that targets directors and other highly paid individuals who have a parking space in the city centre, when they could easily use a train or bus for commuting to their 9-to-5 jobs, but I have a lot of questions about the proposed levy. We know that the provisions in the bill will only be enabling legislation and that it will be up to councils to decide whether they want it or not, but we do not know at what level the charge would be, whether it would apply to the employer or employee or what exemptions there might be. It has been suggested that NHS hospitals might be exempt. What about care homes, hospices, general practices, social work, the police and out-of-town factories where the workers do shifts? Should it be extended to out-of-town shopping centres, so that shoppers would pay to park and thereby help to protect our town centres? I look forward to seeing the amendment and to taking evidence in the committee, when I hope that those types of question will be clarified.
Another issue that has been raised is whether there would be any advantage in commercial bus services being publicly owned. I certainly regret that Strathclyde was forced to privatise its buses, while Lothian was allowed to keep its buses. However, when we had Strathclyde Buses and before that, Glasgow Corporation Transport, Scottish Motor Traction—SMT—and the Scottish Bus Group, there were still frequent complaints about bus services. For example, in Rutherglen, the complaint was that all the buses ran to Castlemilk and ignored Rutherglen.
However, we had evidence that bus usage has been in decline in the west of Scotland since before 1960—long before any privatisation. Therefore, although I am sympathetic to public ownership and I think that we should consider it, we must be wary about assuming that it would automatically lead to increased or improved services. The fall in bus usage is complex; it is linked to a desire for cars and to improved train services in the Glasgow area.
I am more than happy to support the principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that we will see one major amendment—and probably a host of other amendments—at stage 2. We will have to see what happens then.
16:22James Kelly (Glasgow) (Lab)
It has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Members have made contributions on issues ranging from pavement parking to low-emission zones. That shows the wide range of subjects that the bill covers.
I want to concentrate on buses, which is where the bill comes up short. In the area that I represent, there is no doubt that buses are very much required by commuters. They are required to get to work, for social purposes and to travel to hospitals. In recent years, bus services have been concentrated—a small number of companies focus on the more profitable routes, particularly around the city centre, and by the time we get to Rutherglen, which John Mason mentioned, or further, to Cambuslang, Halfway and Blantyre, the routes are not as well populated by buses.
Another trend that we have seen in recent years is bus companies shutting the routes in off-peak periods, particularly in the evening. That can be a problem, particularly for people who are perhaps travelling to visit people in hospital. To explain why that is happening, we need to examine the trend. One of the astonishing numbers that I came across in preparing for the debate was that, back in 2007, there were 487 million bus journeys in Scotland, but that figure has reduced by nearly 100 million to 388 million; so, there are now 100 million fewer bus journeys per year than there were 10 years ago.
There are a number of reasons for that. First, fares have increased by 18 per cent in the past five years, so it is more expensive for people to travel by bus. There are also fewer buses—with 10 per cent less stock and 2 per cent fewer staff—and bus companies are contracting in size in terms of both infrastructure and numbers, which feeds through to the routes. The reduction in the bus service operators grant, which Colin Smyth described, also contributes, and the overall picture of reduced local government funding has not helped local authorities to subsidise less-profitable routes.
The picture that that paints is one of decline in the use of bus services and an increase in bus companies’ power over communities in respect of their ability to either run or cancel routes. That seems unfair, particularly given that 35 per cent of journeys are made under the concessionary travel scheme, through which the Scottish Government makes a major contribution to free bus travel. The logic of that would be to give more power to communities and to look to a model that supports municipal bus companies.
Ultimately, we need to get back to a position where communities and councils have greater control of bus routes in order to ensure that their bus routes and bus companies serve them.
Ticketing and data are another interesting area, which sounds technical but could help—the get Glasgow moving group provided a good briefing on that. Over the years, there has been a lot of discussion about smart ticketing and having one ticket to cover different companies and different modes of transport, but the reality is that movement on that has been far too slow. It could help by providing ease of travel for customers and allowing for the collection of data. If we are to organise bus routes in an efficient manner that serves customers well, we need more information about fares, routes and usage. Smart ticketing and better collection of data would help to service that.
Finally, I turn to the workplace parking levy. There are two issues with it. First, it is fundamentally unfair. I just read a quotation from a senior Scottish Government minister, talking about free prescriptions, who said that it is unfair to tax ill health. By the same token, how is it fair to tax people driving to their work?
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention?
The Deputy Presiding Officer
The member is in his last minute—in fact, he is in his last 30 seconds.
James Kelly
I am sorry—I have only half a minute left.
The second issue with the workplace parking levy, which even Mr Mason acknowledged, is that it is quite a big change in Government policy. It is one of the more controversial measures that the Scottish National Party has introduced in the past 12 years and it is wrong for it to come in at stage 2 of a bill. If the Government genuinely wanted to bring it forward, it should have run a consultation on it and sought people’s view on it, instead of ramming it through as part of a budget deal. There are big issues to resolve at stage 2.
16:29Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I thank the clerks for their work on the Rural Environment and Connectivity Committee report, and I welcome and support the bill at stage 1.
It is especially important for everyone to take note of part 1 of the bill, which covers low-emission zones—an important matter that gives the bill great purpose. I am concerned about the poor air quality in certain areas and that is why I want to deliver for the people of Scotland a bill that meets their needs and looks after their health. It is anticipated that the bill will accomplish that.
We should make great efforts to improve the health of the people of Scotland by putting forth a bill that strives to reduce air pollution. The bill will do that by prohibiting vehicles that do not meet emission standards from driving in low-emission zones. I welcome low-emission zones because I sincerely believe that the people of Scotland deserve to live free from health problems that are caused by poor air quality and that we could achieve that by enforcing low-emission zones. We should deliberately plan to prevent any unintended repercussions that would undermine our goal, such as the suspension of an LEZ; I believe that a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week LEZ should mean exactly that, as the British Lung Foundation suggested.
Our efforts and care should be extended to our local businesses. That is why I believe that part 2 of the bill, which covers bus services in Scotland, is also essential. The provisions aim to help local councils, by giving them options that will help them to enhance bus services in their area. Part 2 also strives to provide more innovative ways to address bus service issues. I was previously a councillor, and I have always believed that councils could do more with regard to bus services.
The decline of bus use in Scotland is visible and is a problem that concerns the committee and me. It could, and should, be tackled if Scotland is to reverse that trend. To do so, we must address the problem by looking at affordable solutions. I sincerely believe that, if more of our constituents were able to access our bus services, we would have more productive members of society and that we would bestow them with the opportunity to give back to Scotland.
The Transport (Scotland) Bill is a piece of legislation that attempts to help Scotland and its people: it is a start. Moreover, the bill will improve the daily lives of our citizens by providing a solution to our pavement parking issue. Indeed, pedestrians must be protected, and the bill will ensure that pavement parking is addressed.
We need to restrict pavement parking to protect our citizens from harm. Pavement parking is dangerous for all pedestrians, including those with sight loss. In fact, the Guide Dogs Scotland survey, which I thank the organisation for providing, found that nine out of 10 people with sight loss have had problems with cars that are parked on the pavement. Obstructions on the pavement are not just an inconvenience but a barrier to people being able to fully participate in our society. The obstruction prevents people with sight loss from moving freely, which increases feelings of isolation; people with disabilities and buggy users are also affected.
The bill will make pavement parking an offence except, of course, on a limited number of streets that are exempted by the council. However, the aim of the legislation should be that pavement parking is a total exception, not a norm. I suggest that pavement parking should be minimised in line with the ask of Guide Dogs Scotland. The bill responds to the request of our citizens, who showed 83 per cent support for new legislation that tackles pavement parking.
We make laws to improve the lives of all our citizens, including citizens with sight loss, and that is what part 4 of the bill should be about.
Mike Rumbles
Will the member take an intervention?
Richard Lyle
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
As a member of the committee, I believe that we should listen to the views of Guide Dogs Scotland with regard to loading and unloading. I am sure that the issue will be resolved during the next stage, following discussion with Guide Dogs Scotland.
I will raise a final issue, in respect of which I declare an interest as the convener of the cross-party group on the Scottish Showmen’s Guild. I voice my support for giving a limited exemption to showmen. At stage 2 of the bill, consideration should be given to having an exemption for showpeople who are travelling through a low-emission zone. Traditionally, showmen have been acknowledged as a special case and have exemptions in other areas. Historically—I sound like Mr Stevenson—showpeople were first granted concessionary rates of taxation in 1927. The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 modified those concessions but kept the exemption for the “showman’s goods vehicle”. I will support a preservation of those reliefs for showpeople at stage 2 and will try to ensure that that happens.
I support the bill, which aims to have greater efficiency in pollution control, strives to improve our bus services and will solve our issues regarding pavement parking. I look forward to the next stage of the bill, when we will be looking at the workplace parking levy.
16:34Colin Smyth
Transport impacts on many aspects of our constituents’ lives, from their health to the environment to poverty. It accounts for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, with levels currently the same as they were in 1990. It is a key cause of air pollution, which last year hit illegal levels in eight areas in Scotland.
Cars are by far the biggest polluters in the sector. However, ultra-low-emission vehicles still make up less than 1 per cent of road vehicles, bus usage has plummeted by 20 per cent in the last 10 years under the SNP Government and bus fares have risen by 17 per cent above inflation. The proportion of journeys made on foot has fallen since last year, and just 1.5 per cent of journeys are made by bike.
As the Poverty Alliance has highlighted, the most disadvantaged are hit hardest by those changes: young people are being priced out of travelling to education or work by spiralling bus fares, and older adults and disabled people are being isolated by the axing of local bus services.
The bill is an opportunity to meet those challenges head on and to move towards a modern, green, accessible transport system. It is an opportunity to set out a vision for transport and to establish the legal framework that will underpin our values and ambitions for public transport as a real public service. As the debate has shown, the bill as it stands fails to achieve that.
Several speakers including Mike Rumbles, John Finnie, Peter Chapman, Richard Lyle and others talked about low-emission zones—albeit they had different views. The bill sets out a much-needed and largely reasonable framework for LEZs. Amendments will be needed if we are to ensure that the legislation is effective and future proofed. That means having a statutory definition to provide clarity and make clear that the purpose of an LEZ is to ensure that air pollution is lower than it would be if an LEZ had not been introduced. That may seem obvious. However, when we consider the generous grace periods in the bill and the natural lifespan of cars, there is a real risk of local authorities introducing LEZs that ultimately do not have any real effect. LEZs will be weakened further if they can be suspended or are not operated on a continuous 24/7 basis; Richard Lyle highlighted that.
Air pollution costs around 2,500 lives each year in Scotland. It is an urgent public health crisis, but one that the bill fails to recognise fully. As Neil Bibby, James Kelly, John Finnie, Mike Rumbles and Jamie Greene recognised, the bill also fails to recognise the urgent crisis that we face on our bus network by allowing councils to run only the bus services that the private sector does not want to run. Not a single council in Scotland has shown any interest in doing that.
It is no coincidence that Lothian Buses, Scotland’s only municipal bus company, has seen its passenger numbers grow, while patronage elsewhere plummets, or that it has a 95 per cent customer satisfaction rate and some of the lowest fares in Scotland. That is the outcome of a model that prioritises passengers over profits, encourages social responsibility and delivers millions of pounds a year back into the public purse to be reinvested in public transport. It is unsustainable of the Government to believe that the bill should prevent the rest of Scotland from pursuing such a model.
Several members highlighted the fact that, as the bill stands, the provisions on ticketing arrangements and schemes do not go far enough—they do not even deliver the national multimodal smart card that the Government promised back in 2012. The establishment of a new national technological standard and the national smart ticketing advisory board are welcome, but we need to give the board the legally binding remit to deliver a single ticketing scheme across Scotland and across transport modes.
There was general consensus that pavement parking is an inconvenience for disabled people and that action is needed to tackle that. However, several members said that such action should be extended to include a ban on parking in cycle lanes and next to dropped kerbs—that point was made by Sandra White and Donald Cameron.
There was a recognition of the need for reasonable and targeted exemptions to the ban on pavement parking. However, those must not act as loopholes that undermine the ban, which is what the exemption that would allow 20 minutes for delivery and loading does. I fear that allowing parking on pavements with a 1.5m space would also be a loophole and continue to present a hazard for those with a visual impairment.
The bill also gives councils the power to enforce the new regulations. That point has not yet been covered, so I will spend a couple of minutes talking about it. That provision means that councils without decriminalised parking enforcement will be required to set up an entire department, which could issue a parking ticket for a car parked on a pavement on one side of the street, but could not issue a ticket for a car parked on a double yellow line on the other side of the street. What an absurd situation for the Government to create. Surely it is not beyond the Government’s ability to bring forward proposals to simplify the decriminalisation process or to extend councils’ enforcement powers to a wider range of traffic offences.
Jamie Greene
Does the member share the view of Scottish Borders Council, which suggests that the proposal simply shifts responsibility for enforcement from the police to local authorities, which do not have the funding and resources for that?
Colin Smyth
Jamie Greene makes a valid point. The biggest problem is the fallout from Police Scotland’s decision to scrap traffic wardens, who dealt with parking problems in our town centres. Now, we see police officers walking by cars that are parked on double yellow lines and not taking action, because the police do not regard that as a priority.
The situation is leading to parking chaos in far too many of our town centres, which is impacting on businesses. The sad reality is that if Police Scotland is not prepared to bring back traffic wardens, the only way to tackle the issue is by giving local authorities enforcement powers. The problem with the bill is that a council that has not decriminalised parking will have to enforce the law on pavement parking but will not have the power to enforce the law when it comes to parking on a double yellow line. That really is an absurd position. For the Government simply to say that councils should bear the huge cost in money and time of applying for decriminalised parking enforcement is not fair. The Government needs to tackle the anomaly.
In the brief time that remains, I want to put on record Labour’s view that the provisions on regional transport agencies and road works are welcome. In particular, we welcome the strengthening of the Scottish road works commissioner’s powers and the provision that makes the safety code mandatory for road authorities.
A number of members mentioned the workplace parking levy, but not a single one of them talked about the regressive nature of a tax that means that a company boss pays the same as a company cleaner.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member give way?
The Deputy Presiding Officer
The member has six seconds.
Colin Smyth
It is unfair that my constituents in South Scotland, who would have to pay the tax, would have no power over its imposition and no power to get any of the money raised spent on public transport.
We support the principles of the bill, but, as I think that all members showed, a lot of work and amendments will be needed to make the bill fit for purpose.
16:42Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)
I am pleased to close this stage 1 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I say at the outset that the bill has many laudable aims, so we will support it at stage 1. However, as members have made clear throughout the debate, the bill currently represents something of a missed opportunity.
There is little doubt that Scotland’s transport network and the framework that governs it are in urgent need of renewal and modernisation. What we need is a vision—a real drive to the future.
As has been made clear throughout the debate, and in many of the helpful submissions that have been sent to members, significant gaps remain. For that reason, we are of the view that the bill could go further, so we will be pleased to lodge amendments at stage 2.
I will talk about specific areas of the bill, and will elaborate on the discussion that we have heard throughout the afternoon. First, on low-emission zones, there is no doubt that in many of our cities air quality remains a problem that lowers life expectancy and puts additional pressure on our health service. I live within a mile of Market Street in Aberdeen, which is one of the most polluted streets in Scotland. The transport sector is the largest source of nitrogen oxide emissions and the second-largest source of particulates in Scotland. We recognise the many potential benefits of tackling air pollution in Scotland’s towns and cities, so we are broadly supportive of LEZs and the effect that they seek to achieve.
However, there are issues. I am indebted to a member of the SNP—I shall not name the member, because it was not a public conversation—who pointed out that there is anecdotal evidence that the impact of the Aberdeen western peripheral route on Market Street’s pollution might be considerable. We are waiting for the local authority to report back on that. Further, she pointed out—rightly, in my view—that Market Street’s issues are compounded by the many large ships in the adjacent harbour that keep their engines running. We need to be sure that LEZs are used properly and have the desired effect.
I note the concerns of the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland that the introduction of LEZs could have a direct impact on more than 80,000 businesses in Scotland’s four biggest cities. We need to bear in mind the wide definition of “business”.
Jamie Greene talked about electric taxis costing £60,000, which is a big hit for a self-employed driver, and his point about rural users of diesel and agricultural vehicles was also important.
John Finnie
Does Liam Kerr accept that people are increasingly living in town and city centres, in particular in vacated shops, so LEZs would be a boon to them, never mind to motorists?
Liam Kerr
I recognise that, but that does not detract from my point: LEZs have their place if they are used properly, but I would like the significant concerns about them to be ironed out at stage 2. John Finnie will share my specific concern about the cost to the public purse.
Peter Chapman mentioned Dundee, which would be one of the cities to introduce an LEZ. We should remember that the point is to impose penalties on drivers who bring dirty vehicles within the LEZ’s boundaries. According to a question from Jenny Marra yesterday, at least 100 of Dundee’s buses currently fail to meet basic environmental standards, and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee flagged up that the bus industry has raised concerns that introducing LEZs without sufficient lead-in times could force firms to withdraw services or increase fares. I know that John Finnie will be concerned about that.
The introduction of LEZs has to be done correctly, so I endorse Jamie Greene’s suggestion that we need proper support and/or industry-specific exemptions to aid businesses and individuals, especially vulnerable people, in the transition to new LEZs. We need a clear timetable—which might include phased implementation—new incentives to encourage take-up of compliant vehicles, support for residents who will reside within the LEZs, and investment to enhance public transport and active travel routes.
Pavement parking is a real problem, so I am pleased that the bill addresses it. Richard Yule mentioned the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, and having experienced a blindfolded walk with a guide dog in Forfar and having consulted constituents in Aberdeen who are mobile only through using wheelchairs, I know that there is a definite need to address the issue. Cars that are parked on pavements can force people to walk into the road, which is especially dangerous for blind and partially sighted people, and for people with reduced mobility, older people and families with pushchairs.
However, I again share Jamie Greene’s concern that although inconsiderate parking must be tackled, a blanket ban with no room for exemptions by local authorities—remember, they know their communities best—might be too much of a catch-all approach. There has to be room for a compromise, such that we strike a balance between protecting vulnerable pedestrians and allowing harmless pavement parking to continue. I agree with the committee that a limited amount of pavement parking could be permitted in specific areas, provided that a specified minimum amount of pavement space remains.
I heard Edward Mountain talk about Cycling Scotland’s briefing, and whether it would be appropriate to extend the provisions in the bill to cover cycleways. Sandra White and Donald Cameron talked powerfully about new protections for dropped-kerb crossing points. There is a great deal of merit in those proposals, so I endorse the calls for the Scottish Government to consider whether such extensions would be appropriate.
I will make some brief comments on the workplace parking levy. I cannot but oppose it, because I cannot see how it can be right to charge workers £500 just to park at their place of work.
John Finnie
I do not know where Liam Kerr got that figure from. Will he acknowledge that his party’s UK Government reviewed the policies that were available to local authorities in England and Wales and considered that they are appropriate? Why does he want fundraising powers for local authorities in England, but not for those in Scotland?
Liam Kerr
Only one council has used the power. We are talking about what is right for Scotland. The significant point is the number of objections that have been raised—not the least of which is from the Scottish Police Federation, which suggests that the proposal could compromise not only public safety, but the safety of our brave police officers. I know that that will concern John Finnie. We must listen to those voices.
Perhaps uniquely, I completely associate myself with Colin Smyth’s comments. His points were absolutely spot on—as were James Kelly’s, to be fair—about commuters from outside cities paying, to no local benefit, under a fundamentally inequitable policy. That point was well made. Richard Yule seemed to miss out a bit of his speech, so I wonder whether he would like to intervene on me right now and restate his view that he will never vote for the policy. Would you care to do so, Mr Yule?
Richard Lyle
My name is not Richard Yule; it is Richard Lyle.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
I ask members to conduct exchanges through the chair rather than across the chamber.
Liam Kerr
Mr Lyle seems to be reluctant to accept my invitation, so I will not push the point.
It is clear from this afternoon’s debate, the committee’s report and the many submissions that groups have sent to members in advance of the debate, that the bill is laudable. It includes many good principles, including a focus on the environment and support for bus services, which is not an issue that I have had time to summarise, although Mike Rumbles and Peter Chapman looked at it in detail and were highly persuasive.
I have my doubts about whether the bill goes far enough or is ambitious enough, but I confirm that we will support its general principles at stage 1, and I look forward to working collaboratively on a cross-party basis to drive improvements in Scotland’s transport network.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
I call Michael Matheson to wind up the debate for the Government.
16:50Michael Matheson
I welcome the contributions from across the chamber, in which members have touched on a range of issues in the bill. In his opening comments, Edward Mountain mentioned the limited amount of time that has been allocated to the debate, given the bill’s complexity and the range of issues that it covers, and I have some sympathy with that point. So great is the range of topics that the bill covers, I had to canter through my opening speech in an effort to touch on as many of them as possible.
I want to pick up on some of the issues that have been raised. I take exception to Mr Greene’s suggestion that, in some way, the bill is not an ambitious bill. I think that he got confused between the need for legislation and the need for a strategy to take forward legislative provisions. As I said at the outset of my opening speech, the bill is only one element of the wider range of measures that need to be taken to tackle a range of transport issues. The review of the national transport strategy will be critical to making sure that we achieve not only the benefits that can come from the bill but the goal of improving Scotland’s transport infrastructure and transport services, which is a much more ambitious agenda. I am sure that Mr Greene will wait with bated breath to read the draft of the national transport strategy and that, when it is published, he will share it with Mr Kerr, who also seems to have confused legislation and strategy.
A key issue is the provision of low-emission zones. It is clear that there is a need for us to take appropriate action to address pollution and poor air quality in our town centres, especially in our big cities. LEZs, which Edward Mountain, Jamie Greene, Mike Rumbles, John Finnie and Colin Smyth, among others, talked about, can assist us in doing that.
One issue that was raised was the need for a standardised approach to such zones. Edward Mountain correctly reflected what I said in my evidence to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which I repeated in my response to the committee’s stage 1 report. Our intention is to have consistency on how low-emission zones are applied. We want the truck, the bus or the car that is compliant in the Glasgow LEZ to also be compliant in the LEZs in Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. We want a consistent approach to be taken to the standards that will be applied. We are setting out the relevant provisions in regulations to give us the flexibility to adapt those standards as things progress and we move on from Euro 6 and Euro 4 engines. That will mean that, as technology develops, we can amend the regulations instead of having to come back to the primary legislation. We will be able to adapt the standards much more quickly and flexibly through regulations as the new zones bed in and technology progresses.
Stewart Stevenson
The second pollutant on the list that is provided in the Government’s “Cleaner Air for Scotland: The Road to A Healthier Future” is sulphur dioxide. The issue of vessels continuing to run their engines in harbours adjacent to populated areas is a real one, because that is the big source of sulphur dioxide. Will the cabinet secretary work with the UK Government to reduce the sulphur in marine fuels, which might help?
Michael Matheson
The member makes a good point. There are new and emerging technologies in the marine industry that could help to address that issue and we will continue to pursue the matter with the UK Government.
The issue of air quality was raised by Peter Chapman and John Finnie. The LEZs do not sit on their own in relation to improving air quality in our city centres. A key part of what we are seeking to do with LEZs is to help to introduce a range of other measures to prioritise public transport options. We only have to look at the approach that is being taken by Glasgow City Council, which introduced the first of its LEZs on 31 December 2018—hogmanay. The Glasgow connectivity commission is looking at a range of issues to see how it can improve transport connectivity in greater Glasgow. A key part of that is improving bus provision.
Glasgow’s approach is exactly the approach that LEZs will help to support and achieve elsewhere. It is about that wider and more holistic approach, looking at active travel options, other public transport options and bus prioritisation—all the measures that we know can assist us in improving air quality in our town centres and in improving the attractiveness of public transport and active travel options.
In places such as Glasgow, the average speed of a bus going through the city centre is in the region of 3mph. By providing greater public transport prioritisation in the town centre, the speed could double to 6mph. It would make journey times quicker and bus travel more attractive and the running cost for the bus industry would be lower as well. That is one of the measures that Glasgow is considering.
LEZs are important, but they are one of a range of elements. A number of members have raised issues in relation to the bus industry—in particular, the declining patronage. One of the errors that can be made in trying to tackle some of the challenges around the bus industry is to think that there is some magic wand that can reverse more than four decades of decline in bus patronage. We all know that the reasons for the decline in bus patronage are multifactorial. There is a range of issues that impact on bus patronage. The idea that there is a simple one-off, off-the-shelf solution that will address all the issues is wrong, because of the complexity of the issues. That is why it is important that the bill makes a range of different options available to local authorities so that they can develop an approach that best suits their local circumstances. For some, that may be franchising; for others, it may be a bus service improvement partnership or running their own services.
As I said when I was at committee, I hear the views of those who believe that there should be a provision to enable local authorities to run their own services as and when they like on a municipal basis, as in Lothian. I am not ideologically opposed to that. However, I will sound one note of caution—the suggestion that that is the answer to all our bus issues in Scotland is simply not true. We only have to look at municipal bus services in England to see that, in some cities, they do not work at all and the local authorities are looking to disinvest from the services because of the challenges. It is not simply about one model; it is how we make use of that model that is important, which is why we will give consideration to that.
Colin Smyth
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
John Finnie
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Michael Matheson
Mr Smyth was first in seeking to make an intervention so I will give way to him.
Colin Smyth
It is important to note that, during the debate, not a single member said that there was one panacea for the decline in bus patronage. However, why does the cabinet secretary think that banning councils from having the same model as Lothian is a way to improve bus services? Why does he stick to that point?
Michael Matheson
As I have said—and I will repeat it for the third time for the benefit of the member—I am open to giving consideration to that option. However, when members overplay a particular option, it suggests that they think there is a wand that they can wave that will resolve problems, which is just not true and does not reflect the complexity of the issues. No doubt the member will want to reflect on that.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying something about parking. I heard the competing views in the chamber on the 20-minute exemption for unloading. It is important to recognise that people in the road haulage and delivery industries and business say that there must be some exemption to allow deliveries to take place, but I have also heard people say that there should be no exemptions whatever or that the exemption should be based not on time but on the amount of the pathway that can be made available.
There are also the concerns expressed by Sandra White who, as everyone in the chamber will want to recognise, has for many years now been pursuing, along with Ross Finnie and Joe FitzPatrick, the need to tackle pavement parking effectively. I will, of course, reflect on the views of and issues raised by the committee and members in the chamber. We are seeking to strike a balance that addresses the issue appropriately, but if there are ways in which we can address the concerns that have been expressed, we will certainly give them due consideration at stage 2.
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
That concludes this afternoon’s debate.
4 April 2019
Financial resolution
A financial resolution is needed for Bills that may have a large impact on the 'public purse'.
MSPs must agree to this for the Bill to proceed.
Financial resolution transcript
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
The next item is consideration of motion S5M-16393, on a financial resolution for the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Transport (Scotland) Bill, agrees to—
(a) any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act, and
(b) any charge or payment in relation to which Rule 9.12.4 of the Standing Orders applies arising in consequence of the Act.—[Derek Mackay]
The Presiding Officer
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
4 April 2019
Stage 2 - Changes to detail
MSPs can propose changes to the Bill. The changes are considered and then voted on by the committee.
Who spoke to the lead committee at Stage 2
First meeting transcript
The Convener
The next item is our first evidence-taking session on the policy intentions of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill on the proposed workplace parking levy. Two panels of witnesses will give evidence today, with our questioning of the first panel conducted by videoconference.
Our first panel of witnesses will give evidence on Nottingham City Council’s experience of the workplace parking levy, and I welcome to the meeting Chris Carter, head of transport strategy, Nottingham City Council; and Professor Stephen Ison, professor of transport policy, Loughborough University. Professor Ison has undertaken research on Nottingham’s experience of the workplace parking levy.
Before we go any further, there is one declaration of interest to deal with.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
No representatives from Aviva are present at the meeting, but it is only right that I declare that I receive a small pension from Aviva, which manages my pension on behalf of a company that used to provide it.
The Convener
I should say to the witnesses that the committee members will question you in an order that I will determine, and when they come to the end of their time, I will wave at them to get them to stop. If I think that you are expanding beyond the remit of the question that you are answering, you might see me waving at you, too. Unfortunately, you are not in the room with us, so I cannot do what I threaten to do to those who continue to speak after I have waved a few times, which is to waggle my pen and then launch it across the room. I have never done that, and anyway, it would have no effect on you, as you are on screen.
Welcome to the meeting and thank you for agreeing to give evidence.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
My questions are straightforward. Why did Nottingham City Council decide to develop a workplace parking levy scheme and, perhaps more important, why is it the only local authority in England and Wales to have introduced such a levy since the passage of the Transport Act 2000 19 years ago? Why is Nottingham City Council unique in this respect?
Chris Carter (Nottingham City Council)
First of all, I will give a bit of background to why Nottingham set out on this course.
The city has been following integrated transport policies for a number of years, because, like many other cities, it suffers from congestion. We know that incentives on their own are not enough to influence behaviour change; plenty of research out there says that you need some sticks, too, if you are going to encourage modal change.
With that in mind, Nottingham looked at the legislation when it came in, in 2000, and it was influential in getting the workplace parking levy included, because we saw that the levy fitted the city’s needs. We were being impacted by traffic from further afield coming into the city. Nottingham is a centre for commerce and jobs, with a lot of employment, and our problem is peak-time congestion.
We therefore saw the levy as the perfect tool for influencing behaviour and, importantly, for investing in high-quality public transport alternatives. We identified a package of measures including the expansion of our tram system; one line was opened in 2004, and the levy was seen as a way of providing a local contribution to allow the tram to be expanded into a much more comprehensive system across the city.
The levy was also used to invest in Nottingham station. Businesses had said that the station was not an attractive gateway into the city, and they felt it important that that was improved.
We also used the money to improve our bus services by investing in a fleet of electric buses that are used on tendered services. That is particularly important as they serve certain areas that are not served by the commercial network—for example, business parks, which traditionally do not have good bus services. It is very much seen as part of a package of measures.
Mike Rumbles
If it is such a success and such a positive thing, why, after 19 years, are you the only council that has done it?
Professor Stephen Ison (Loughborough University)
Historically, when the legislation was put in place, quite a number of local authorities—close to 25 of them—were interested in either road pricing or the workplace parking levy. However, a number of things need to be in place before you can implement a policy, whether it be road pricing or the levy, that is not seen as very acceptable, because it acts as a disincentive.
Nottingham had a number of things in place that allowed it to introduce the levy. First, there was a stable political situation in the council, which I think is necessary. Secondly, it had a number of policy champions. I cannot understate the importance of having that kind of champion for any local authority or any Government that wants to introduce such a policy. Moreover, Nottingham needed to develop its tram network, and hypothecation of the revenue was an important part of that. That is part of the reason why the levy happened.
The Convener
I am sorry, but time is short, and the shorter we can keep the answers and the more dialogue we can get going between us, the better. I will move on to John Mason, who has the next question.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
My understanding is that, in the first five years of the levy, you have raised approximately £53 million. I am interested in finding out where that money has gone. You used the word “hypothecation”. I understand that the tram network has cost £570 million, the railway £60 million and the buses £200 million. Obviously, the levy has not fully paid for all that. How, then, does it work?
Chris Carter
The total cost of the tram system, for example, is about £500 million, and the local contribution is about £100 million. Basically, it all goes into a financial model, because there are lots of different funding streams that pay for all these measures. The levy provides the city council’s contributions to those programmes, and it is also important to point out that it levers in a lot of other investment to fund the total cost of those improvements.
10:15John Mason
Would the improvements have happened anyway without the levy?
Chris Carter
No, definitely not.
John Mason
So, the levy has made a significant difference, even though it covers only a small part of the expenditure.
Chris Carter
That is correct. We would generally describe that money as our local contribution.
John Mason
That is helpful. Has the levy had an impact on traffic congestion?
Professor Ison
Yes. It is obviously very difficult to disentangle the impact of any one measure on traffic, but the figures suggest that, when compared with a number of comparator cities, there has been a reduction in the overall level of congestion following the introduction of the levy. You would expect as much with a change that aims to impact on demand.
John Mason
So, the levy has reduced not the amount of traffic but the growth of traffic.
Professor Ison
That is exactly right.
Peter Chapman
Good morning, gentlemen. You have outlined the huge investment that you have made in public transport, including your tram, bus and train systems, and I imagine that that has led to greater use of that kind of transport. Indeed, simply making that investment would, in its own right, lead to public transport being used more frequently. What percentage of the increase in the use of public transport is due to the levy, and what percentage is due to the fact that you have invested a lot in the public transport systems?
Professor Ison
It is quite difficult to disentangle the impact of a particular measure on anything, but our work suggests that the public transport modal share has changed dramatically since the introduction of the levy, with an uptake in cycling across the board and bus patronage increasing over the period.
Of course, if, as has happened, you reduce the number of parking spaces from about 35,000 to about 29,000, there will be an impact, because of the impact on the termination point of traffic. A number of the people affected have taken up alternatives, including the tram, which has been developed in part through funding from the levy.
Chris Carter
Three elements are driving change, the first of which is the direct impact of the levy and the introduction of this charge. As that represents a relatively small amount of the total cost, the direct modal change resulting from the introduction of the levy is probably small.
Secondly, there is the behaviour of business. The levy is a tax on business, and it depends on the number of parking spaces that are provided. Therefore, if business reduces the number of spaces, that will have an impact.
Thirdly, there is the investment in public transport alternatives, which is probably the biggest element in driving modal change.
Peter Chapman
Do you have any evidence that the levy has encouraged more people to commute by bike or to walk to work?
Chris Carter
Yes. Over the past 10 years, we have seen about a 50 per cent increase in the number of cyclists. I do not have the figures for the number of people walking, but the behaviour change across all sustainable modes is encouraging.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Good morning. You have touched on the issue of congestion. What impact, if any, has the levy had on local air pollution levels?
Chris Carter
The levy has been implemented primarily as a congestion measure. Although we have kept it separate from our air quality strategy, there clearly is a link. The levy and the public transport improvements have helped to contain traffic in Nottingham, which means that traffic growth has been lower than in many other areas.
As for air quality, Nottingham was predicted to be one of the areas that would be in excess of air pollution limits by 2020, and we conducted our own local modelling to look into that further. Because of the levy, the improvements that we have been making and other investments that have been made by local public transport operators, Nottingham has a plan, which has been agreed by the Government, and with the retrofitting of buses and the changes that we are making to our taxis, we will now comply with the air quality regulations. That has happened partly because of the levy.
John Finnie
You have mentioned a suite of measures. Are you able to identify what part the workplace parking levy has played in that?
Chris Carter
No, I cannot. It is just really difficult to isolate individual measures, particularly because the levy has been presented as part of a package. People’s behaviour is influenced by many factors, such as fuel prices, and the levy is just one small fiscal measure that influences behaviour. It is therefore difficult to isolate an individual part.
John Finnie
I appreciate that. In that case, I will try another question. Are you able to comment on the levy’s impact on business growth and inward investment?
Chris Carter
We have not been able to identify any particular business that has moved out of Nottingham as a result of the levy. Before the levy was introduced, there was a lot of discussion about its impact on inward investment, but we have not been able to find any evidence of people moving out specifically because of it.
When we have discussions about inward investment, the levy always comes up as a factor, but there is a trade-off in that businesses and offices want to come to the city centre because of the good public transport access. The tram is a good attractor for people to invest in the city. Different businesses have different needs and, depending on those needs, they will see a high-quality public transport system as being important or—if they are particularly dependent on cars or business travel—as less suitable. There are different needs in different areas.
Professor Ison
I would back that up. I do not think that there is evidence to suggest that the introduction of the workplace parking levy has led to any outward investment as a result of companies relocating. When the scheme was first introduced, people said that that would happen, but as Chris Carter has rightly pointed out, that does not appear to be the case. The public transport network is much improved, and businesses can see the benefits of that. There is no evidence to suggest that, in cities with similar measures, there has been an adverse effect on investment.
John Finnie
Many thanks.
Richard Lyle
I have had the good fortune to be in Nottingham, and I know many of your politicians through the Association for Public Service Excellence. Do you agree that you need a majority council and the political will in a local area to drive the parking levy scheme forward?
Chris Carter
You need strong political leadership. Exactly what form that takes will be different in different areas, but it is essential.
Richard Lyle
Do you think that the levy could be introduced by a minority council?
Chris Carter
If you have agreed a clear vision of what you want to do and how the levy would form part of a strategy, there is no reason why you cannot introduce it. As long as there is agreement around a vision, it will work. However, leadership is the key.
Richard Lyle
What reaction did you get from the public when you first introduced the levy?
Chris Carter
There were different reactions from different people. City residents, who are predominantly impacted by congestion, pollution and all the other adverse impacts of traffic, generally support the levy, because they can see how the investments are beneficial to them, while people who are likely to drive into Nottingham from further afield will say that they have been negatively impacted. The levy impacts on different people in different ways.
Richard Lyle
I have another two questions. Your submission refers to exemptions for
“customer vehicles, fleet vehicles, disabled blue badge holders, and a number of employers who are 100% discounted from the charge such as Ambulance, Police, Fire and qualifying NHS premises.”
Do you suggest that anyone who considers introducing a levy should grant all the same exemptions as you have?
Chris Carter
The Nottingham scheme makes few exemptions; the exemptions relate more to operational vehicles than to those that involve commuter journeys. The only significant exemption is for national health service premises, which came about after discussion with the then Secretary of State for Transport.
The beauty of the workplace parking levy is that it is flexible and allows different exemptions to meet needs. However, another strength of the levy is its simplicity. If too many exemptions are introduced, it becomes too complicated and a lot of the benefits are lost.
Professor Ison
I agree. At least in the first instance, it is important for the scheme to be simple.
Richard Lyle
Your submission says:
“The scheme focuses heavily on compliance with officers working with employers to assist them in licensing their parking spaces correctly and”—
this is the interesting part—
“encouraging them to take advantage of the business support available.”
Will you explain that?
Chris Carter
We offer business support as part of the scheme. I have an officer who goes round and talks to businesses that pay the levy. We offer a grant scheme so that employers can provide facilities for their staff, such as cycle shelters, showers, car park management, travel planning information and, latterly, electric vehicle charging points. We provide grants to support businesses in reducing their liability.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
You mentioned that designated NHS premises are exempt, but is it the case that a police officer who parked at work or a teacher who parked at a school would not be exempt?
Chris Carter
That is correct. The exemption applies to front-line NHS premises, such as hospitals and other medical facilities. However, a separate administrative facility would not be exempt.
Colin Smyth
The cost of the levy in Nottingham is set at £415 per parking space, and the cost is often passed on to workers. That means that Nottingham City Council’s chief executive, whose salary is £170,000-plus a year, would pay exactly the same as the lowest-paid worker in the council, who receives the living wage. Is the levy the same, irrespective of income?
Chris Carter
That is not how the scheme works. The levy is a charge on the employer, which pays the charge. It is up to employers to decide how or whether they pass on the levy to their employees.
The city council charges different amounts for car parks in different parts of the city, and it changes the amount that people pay according to their salary. That is the employer’s decision; other employers have taken a similar or different approach. It is up to the employer to decide whether to pass on the levy.
Professor Ison
Some organisations allocate the charge to their workforce in a sophisticated way that is based on salary and vehicle engine size. They use a sliding scale that takes all that into account, so a person might pay an awful lot or very little—that would depend on their salary structure and the vehicle that they used. If organisations implement such an approach, how they do it has been left up to them.
Colin Smyth
Allowing employers to charge everybody the same amount, irrespective of salary, is regressive. Why have you not issued guidance to all employers that pass on the levy to say that the approach should be more progressive and based on salary? Why have you allowed employers to charge everybody the same amount, irrespective of salary?
Chris Carter
The way that the scheme works is that we charge the employer; that is just how the scheme is set up. We advise employers on how they can pass on that charge if they choose to do so and we give them examples of how they can do that. We would probably advise that, if they adopt such schemes, they should vary the charge depending on the employee’s salary. That is certainly in some of the examples that we give employers.
10:30Professor Ison
Many organisations outside the levy have schemes where they charge their employees to park at the workplace. There is one such scheme at Loughborough University and there is no interference from the local authority in that charge.
Colin Smyth
The charge can be applied only within the Nottingham City Council area. Would it be fair to say that most of the travel-to-work areas in Nottingham are pretty much urban areas?
Chris Carter
The travel-to-work areas go beyond the urban areas. They go into neighbouring rural districts.
Colin Smyth
Is it fair that somebody in a rural area who does not have access to public transport has to travel into Nottingham using their car but their local authority has no say whatsoever on that levy because they live outwith the Nottingham City Council area? Is that fair, given that none of the funding raised by the council will go towards improving public transport in that rural area because it is outwith your boundaries?
Chris Carter
One of the particular features of Nottingham’s public transport system is park and ride. It is an important component of the tram system in particular. There are over 5,000 parking spaces dotted around the urban area—all the motorway access routes have large park-and-ride sites along those main routes. People who are driving in from further afield have the option of driving to the edge of Nottingham, parking in a park and ride and then using one of the high-quality public transport options to get to their destination in the city centre or elsewhere.
The Convener
Members are all being extremely good with their timing. I do not want to provoke you into doing something different, but that means that there will be time to bring in more questions at the end. I have Richard Lyle listed already and anyone else who wants to come in can start indicating that to me. I will go to Stewart Stevenson now and ask him to remember what I have just said.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I have just started my stopwatch, convener.
Mr Carter, you said that having limited exemptions keeps costs down. I want to explore that in more detail. Roughly what percentage of the money that you take in from workplace parking goes on the administration of the scheme?
Chris Carter
We are up to about £9.5 million of income, and about £500,000 per year goes into running the scheme, including the business support element.
Stewart Stevenson
So that is about 6 per cent.
Chris Carter
Yes, it is something like that.
Stewart Stevenson
Have you learned any lessons on that? You have been running the scheme for a considerable time. Have you cut the administration costs or have you found them rising? What is the trend?
Chris Carter
The running of the scheme has been pretty consistent since it began. We do a lot of compliance work. We could have spent money on enforcing the scheme but we have not needed to, because we do a lot of work with employers to ensure that there is a high level of compliance.
I would say that the lesson is that the more work you do on compliance, the more you can ensure that you are minimising the cost of administering the scheme.
Stewart Stevenson
So you are not spending much money on enforcement but you are spending money on ensuring compliance.
Chris Carter
Correct.
Stewart Stevenson
Have you had many issues with non-compliance and how have you dealt with them?
Chris Carter
We have had virtually no issues with enforcement. By having that repeated dialogue with businesses, we have a situation where they provide the required information and the scheme runs smoothly.
Professor Ison
One feature of the scheme in Nottingham is that the charge applies to premises with more than 10 spaces but not to premises with fewer spaces than that, which has cut down the number of employers who are subject to the charge. In the region of 500 employers are subject to it, although there are more than 3,000 organisations within the city boundaries. That made implementation easier.
Stewart Stevenson
Who finds the parking places that are liable to be charged? Does the district valuer do it or is it done in another way?
Chris Carter
We write to all employers and they are required to fill in a return. We have a number of tools that we can then use when we go out. That usually involves visits and having a look. We have the power to inspect car parks and we have a video car that can count vehicles in car parks. That is all part of compliance.
Stewart Stevenson
Finally—I am in my final 20 seconds so I need a very brief answer—I visited Nottingham to see the trams on 23 September 2004. Was that before or after the workplace parking levy started?
Chris Carter
The first Nottingham tram line was built in 2004, which was before the workplace parking levy. We extended the tram system in 2015, which was afterwards—the levy was introduced in 2012.
Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Have the taxation arrangements for the workplace parking levy had any effect on whether employers have chosen to pass on payment of the levy to employees? Do you have any idea of how it works with each employer?
Chris Carter
Generally, public sector employers have passed on the levy to their employees. When it comes to private businesses, probably half of the larger employers have passed it on, and fewer of the smaller employers. That is the broad picture.
Maureen Watt
How has that gone down with employees? It is a benefit in kind, I believe, so it will affect their taxes.
Chris Carter
I am not aware of that, because it is a tax on the employer not on the employee. It affects the business rather than the individual.
Maureen Watt
Are you saying that, if a business passes the levy on to the employee, it does not affect their taxes?
Chris Carter
That is how I understand it, yes.
Maureen Watt
Is that how you understand it, Professor Ison?
Professor Ison
It is indeed.
Maureen Watt
I want to go back to something that you said earlier, professor, because I am not sure that I picked you up correctly. You said that other businesses—Loughborough University, for example—have their own charging schemes. Is that right?
Professor Ison
Yes. You will find that across the country. A lot of employers charge their employees for parking at the workplace.
Maureen Watt
If we take Loughborough University as an example, do you know how it uses the money that it raises?
Professor Ison
I am not privy to how it uses that money. Across the country, organisations might well hypothecate the money to use for improvements in the provision of public transport or the car parking or lighting on their sites. Some will put it into their general pot. I do not think that it is used in any specific way.
Maureen Watt
From your research in the area, where that has happened with companies, does it make them less attractive to employees? Does it have any advantages or disadvantages?
Professor Ison
Charging someone to park at their workplace seems a bit odd, does is it not? However, a lot of organisations are at constrained sites and may well implement a permit system—they just do not have the space for employees and a number of them introduce a charge for that reason.
Maureen Watt
Is that not discriminatory? For example, there may be people with childcare responsibilities who need to get quickly from their work to a nursery.
Professor Ison
Yes. I have done work in a number of organisations, including for hospitals and universities, that are not in Nottingham city. A number of them have sophisticated schemes for dealing with, for example, issues to do with childcare, working on dual sites and difficulties with looking after ageing parents. The levy is not a one-size-fits-all solution by any means. Of course, the more complex you make a scheme, the more difficult it is to administer it. However, I take your point and accept what you are saying.
Jamie Greene
I have heard a lot this morning about the financial benefits to the local authority of raising revenue from the levy scheme, but I have not heard a huge amount of evidence from you about any benefits to improving the air quality or environment of the city, nor any significant evidence to suggest that congestion has been reduced as a direct result of the measure. You said that the measure is primarily to tackle congestion, but all that I have heard is that it seems to be raising revenue. Will you enlighten me further?
Professor Ison
It is difficult to disentangle the impact that any scheme will have on congestion and the environment. Intuitively, if you think of a scheme in which there is a disincentive to use a private car in favour of public transport, walking or cycling, by definition, there will be improvement in the level of congestion and to the environment.
Jamie Greene
That is the theory. You have had experience of the scheme for a number of years, so can you evidence that with some numbers?
Professor Ison
We have, through our work, seen that the level of congestion has not increased as much in Nottingham as it has in comparator cities. I think that work is still to be done on the air quality aspect, to be fair.
Jamie Greene
I will move on to another line of questioning. My reading of the reports on your scheme is that many drivers, rather than suffer the consequence of the levy, park their cars in the suburbs surrounding the city centre, which is causing parking chaos. I could name a number of villages and suburbs where there is evidence of that occurring. What analysis have you done of the displacement of vehicles that used to be parked at a workplace but are now parked in the city’s suburbs?
Chris Carter
Displacement is definitely one of the key issues that have to be addressed if an authority is considering a workplace parking levy scheme. We have paid a lot of attention to parking restrictions and the control of parking around employment sites. We have put in place a number of additional schemes around those sites—that might be in the form of restrictions to prevent parking around an employment site if a nuisance is being caused, or it might be in the form of providing more residents’ parking schemes.
We have significantly increased the amount of residents’ parking schemes for the reason that you said—that is, to make sure that residential areas are not impacted by displaced parking. That happens anyway. It was mentioned that many employers do not provide sufficient parking around their sites, so even without the levy there is displaced parking and parking in residential areas. Many areas suffer from that, as it is a common situation across the country. At least our scheme aims to improve public transport, address those issues and encourage people to use public transport instead of driving.
Jamie Greene
That is interesting. It sounds as if you have had to introduce measures to secure and guarantee residents parking spaces on their own streets as result of displacement because of the levy. Is that what you are saying?
10:45Chris Carter
I am saying that that has been an important aspect. There are different reasons for introducing residents parking schemes—it is very common to protect residential areas from commuter parking—but it has been an important aspect in Nottingham because, due to the workplace parking levy, there has probably been more displacement than there is elsewhere. Therefore, it is important that any authority that is considering introducing a workplace parking levy scheme considers the impacts of potential displaced parking. That is definitely true.
Professor Ison
It is an issue in general. The large generators of traffic in hospitals are part of that, as I have said. There will be some off-site parking on residential streets, which has to be tackled by the use of double yellow lines, controlled parking or other measures.
Gail Ross
Does Nottingham use any other measures, such as low-emission zones or congestion charging?
Chris Carter
We do not have congestion charging and we are not introducing a low-emission zone. We were considering implementing a clean air zone, and we were originally going to be mandated to do so by the Government, but, following our more detailed work and local modelling, we are no longer required to introduce a charging zone to address air quality issues. We are addressing our air quality issues through bus retrofitting and taxi policies, which are the focus of our air quality strategy.
Gail Ross
What made you choose the workplace parking levy over a low-emission zone or congestion charge?
Chris Carter
As I said previously, the workplace parking levy fitted with our strategy. That was partly because of the administrative boundary—Nottingham has a very tight boundary and was suffering from commuter traffic coming into the city area from further afield, so the workplace parking levy fitted well with that. We were trying to identify a potential funding stream for our public transport improvements and the levy also fitted that. The other key factor was that workplace parking levy schemes are much simpler to put in and administer.
At the time, Manchester had tried to introduce a road user charging scheme, which went to a referendum and was resoundingly voted down. The only place that has put in a comprehensive road user charging scheme is London, but London is a very different city to provincial cities. The workplace parking levy was seen as a more suitable scheme for a city the scale of Nottingham. It is much simpler to administer and cheaper to run, so it was much easier for a city that is the size of Nottingham to implement the scheme.
Professor Ison
I reiterate that point. Road pricing is difficult to introduce because it is a direct charge on the motorist for the use of road space, which the workplace parking levy is not. There has been an array of failed attempts to put such a scheme in place and referendums do not seem to be the right way to go about it, as was the experience some time ago in Edinburgh, as well as in Manchester.
The workplace parking levy took some time to introduce, but it is a simpler scheme and one that could be introduced more quickly than a road pricing scheme would have been.
Gail Ross
You mentioned earlier levering in other investment, and in your written submission you say:
“For every £1 raised the Levy helps to lever in at least £3 of external funding.”
What is that external funding?
Chris Carter
For example, in relation to the tram programme, we have to find about £100 million of the £500 million that is required for the tram network and tram extensions. The other funding comes from a cocktail of other sources, but Government grants are a significant part of it. For any project that the Department for Transport funds, it likes to see a local contribution.
That local contribution may range from about 10 per cent up to about 30 per cent. The same applied to the station improvements, where the fact that we could put in about £15 million of local money meant that we were able to lever in to those improvements another £45 million of national funding. That is how it works.
Gail Ross
I have one final small question. I find the charging of teachers to park at their workplace a bit of an anomaly, given that the school basically belongs to the local authority. Where does the charge come from? Does it come from the school budget or does the council pay the council?
Chris Carter
To some extent, in that case, the council pays the council although, there are also a lot of academies.
It is the same situation for the city council. The council will pay the levy but that money comes from the council and then goes into funding transport investment, so it is used for a different purpose. The council passes on those charges to individuals so those costs are covered by those individuals.
Gail Ross
So council employees pay—
Chris Carter
Council employees contribute, so that cost to the council is covered by the employees—that is correct.
Professor Ison
It is not just teachers who are charged but higher education institutions. The two universities in Nottingham also come under the scheme.
The Convener
I have a couple of questions. First, planning regulations used to stipulate that, once you built over a certain size, you had to have a set amount of parking spaces. Has the council changed those requirements to discourage parking at offices, so that if you are building offices, you do not have to provide a set amount of spaces?
Chris Carter
Nottingham has maximum parking standards, not minimum parking standards. We put a maximum limit, not a minimum limit, on our parking standards.
The Convener
So if you build more than a certain number of square metres, you would still be forced to have car parking spaces for that area.
Chris Carter
You would not be forced to do that. Because it is a maximum limit, you are not allowed to provide more than a certain amount of parking.
The Convener
Okay. Your figures show that the number of parking spaces that collect the levy has dropped from 32,000 to 25,000; 7,000 spaces have disappeared. What has happened to those spaces?
Chris Carter
That is one of the consequences of introducing the scheme; the first thing that any business that has parking spaces does is review the parking spaces that it has and then provide only the spaces that it requires.
It is important to say that the charge is only for spaces that are actually used so if a business has contracted and is only using half of its car park, it only has to pay for the spaces that it uses; it does not have to pay for the total number of spaces that are provided.
The Convener
I am sorry, but could you clarify that? You say that 7,000 spaces are no longer being used or charged for; I would say that those spaces are undeveloped areas. Do you encourage the owners of those spaces to redevelop the area for other uses? Are general permitted development regulations allowed to be used for redevelopment or do the owners have to go through the whole process again?
Chris Carter
Some employers have definitely redeveloped their car parks. Nottingham Trent University is a good example of that. It had a number of surface car parks and it decided that it no longer required them, which reduced the levy requirement. It uses the space for other purposes. That could be a beneficial effect of the levy scheme. It makes businesses re-evaluate the use of land and put it to better use in certain circumstances.
The Convener
I understand that, but that is about wide open spaces. In more central areas of the city, if you throw out two spaces it is difficult to find an alternative use for them unless you rent them out for car parking to other people. They could be leased to a separate business.
Chris Carter
It tends to be smaller car parks of 50 to 100 spaces that are redeveloped and replaced by an extension to a building, for example. Companies re-evaluate the spaces that they have.
The Convener
In fairness, I am trying to get to a point about smaller car parks. You charge for car parks with 11 places, so closing one place would get an employer out of the whole thing.
Chris Carter
That has definitely happened. On the margins, in car parks that had 11 or 12 places, some places will have been repurposed as disabled or operational spaces, or a bit of landscaping might have been put in. We accept that that is part of the scheme.
The Convener
This is my final question before going back to other members. Do you have evidence about how the 7,000 spaces that have come out of the levy have been subsequently used or redeveloped?
Chris Carter
We could give examples of how spaces have been redeveloped, although I could not show what has happened to all 7,000. Some larger car parks have been redeveloped, and some marginal spaces are no longer used.
Professor Ison
Some spaces have become redundant.
Chris Carter
That is right.
The Convener
I am being naughty in asking another question but, as the convener, I can get away with that, because I can criticise myself afterwards. Business rates are based on property rental values. Have rental values reduced for properties that have large workplace parking levy liabilities?
Chris Carter
I am not aware of that.
Professor Ison
I am not aware of that.
The Convener
Has the assessor not revalued such properties? Are you not aware of any significant numbers?
Chris Carter
I am not aware of that.
The Convener
We will go back round committee members.
Richard Lyle
Your main bus operator is Nottingham City Transport, which is still in public ownership. Do you agree that a good public transport system must be in place before such a levy is introduced? Has introducing the levy in Nottingham helped you to improve your bus and tram routes and make public transport better?
Chris Carter
It is important to have in place high-quality alternatives, which the public demand. Does that all have to be in place? We argued that we had a good public transport system but that we wanted to make it better, which was why we had to introduce the levy. If a place already has an excellent public transport system, people would probably ask why a levy was needed. The investment was an important part of our case.
Richard Lyle
So you must have good public transport first.
Chris Carter
That was important for Nottingham.
Mike Rumbles
I compliment both witnesses on their evidence. It has been excellent, but it has left me somewhat perplexed. You have operated the scheme for seven years. It sounds good and you have given positive evidence about achieving the exercise’s aims, but I am still perplexed. That goes back to a question that I asked earlier, when I did not get to the bottom of the issue, so I would like you to have another go at it.
You have operated the scheme for seven years, so why has not one single authority in England and Wales copied you? If the scheme was such a prime example, I would have thought that people would be falling over themselves to copy it.
Professor Ison
I totally agree—I am perplexed about why the scheme has not been copied. The same point applies to road pricing. The legislation for both measures was introduced in 2000, and bodies could go for road pricing, the workplace parking levy or both. Road pricing applies to one road in Durham, and attempts have been made to put in place road pricing schemes in other parts of the country, including Edinburgh.
Such measures are difficult and thorny. People must be brave and have the vision to introduce them, because it is not easy. To introduce a charge—some would call it a tax—is to implement a disincentive. We have discussed fairness and that sort of thing, and all such issues are important. Nottingham was brave—
Mike Rumbles
If I can interrupt, are you saying that only Nottingham is brave? I am not commenting on that, but what about all the other councils?
Professor Ison
The submissions to the committee show that a number of authorities, including London boroughs, are looking again at the measure. It went very quiet after Nottingham, which I was quite surprised about—I thought that, after they saw the impact, others would look at the measure. It will be more widely implemented, but a number of things need to be in place before that happens.
I do not know why we are in this position. Perhaps Chris Carter knows. There has certainly been a lot of interest in Nottingham—we are not short of suitors and visitors.
11:00Chris Carter
That is right. Lots of authorities have been in, had a look and are interested in progressing matters. The air quality requirements, and the clean air zones, which are basically road user charging in a different shape, are forcing many local authorities to go back to road pricing, and maybe some will consider the workplace parking levy as part of that. Things are changing, and I think that there will be much more interest in the WPL.
Jamie Greene
Have any businesses left Nottingham as a result of the levy?
Chris Carter
Not that we are aware of, no.
Jamie Greene
Does that mean that the BBC article that I am reading is incorrect? The article quotes a business director in Nottingham whose answer to the introduction of the levy was to move her organisation to Derby. She said:
“We’ve been in Derby ... and we’re very settled.
Nottingham has lost what we consider to be a very valuable talent pool, highly educated and intelligent people who are no longer part of the Nottingham scene.”
The local chamber of commerce seems to agree with that sentiment.
Chris Carter
You can probably find one example, but I am not aware that there have been any significant movements out of Nottingham as a direct result of the levy. I am not saying that the levy is not a factor in people’s inward investment decisions, but public transport and the provision of the tram are factors in such decisions, too. Different businesses have different needs. Lots of employers are looking to go back into cities, because public transport makes them more accessible. They consider that traffic and congestion are becoming big problems. There was a lot of investment in business parks around motorway junctions, but now people find that they are completely inaccessible. Businesses want to move back into city centre locations, because alternative transport modes are in place. That is how cities are changing and growing, is it not?
Professor Ison
It is sometimes very difficult to disentangle why a company has moved. That reason was given in that case, but I do not know that case.
Jamie Greene
I will just have to take them at their word—that is the reason that they gave publicly.
Professor Ison
Yes, of course; that is fine.
Stewart Stevenson
I will turn that point around. What businesses does Nottingham have an opportunity to attract because of the substantial investment in an excellent public transport system and the relative lack of congestion? Congestion there is growing more slowly than elsewhere. What kind of businesses will find that attractive? Is there any evidence that such businesses are being attracted?
Chris Carter
Organisations with large offices, including headquarters and regional offices, are generally the sort of places that want to locate in cities. Obviously, locations close to the train station are attractive, so that the employers can get people from further afield. An example of an organisation moving in is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—it is relocating a large regional office to a site close to the station, because it has very good accessibility from within the city and from further afield. That is the sort of employer who will want to invest in a high-quality city.
Stewart Stevenson
Roughly how many employees are you talking about?
Chris Carter
I think that, initially, there will be about 2,000, but I think that there will be space for 4,000 in the building under construction.
Stewart Stevenson
You will have to forgive me for my ignorance of Nottingham, but, to give a sense of scale, roughly how many people are in employment in Nottingham?
Chris Carter
There are about 300,000 jobs in the conurbation, of which 200,000 are in the city of Nottingham.
Stewart Stevenson
That is roughly a 1 per cent plus increase in employment as a result of a decision in which you think the issues that I mentioned were a factor, if not the decisive matter.
Chris Carter
I do not know. Decisions that businesses or employers make about where they locate are based on numerous factors, and transport is one of them. The quality of offices is a factor. There are a host of reasons why businesses locate where they locate, and transport is one of those reasons.
Professor Ison
I have to say that it can only be good for a relatively small free-standing city to have a highly developed public transport system—trams and bus networks and so on—if businesses are thinking about where they will locate their premises.
The Convener
I am going to take two more questions and then I have one to ask myself.
Richard Lyle
I contend that, as a motorist, I pay road tax, petrol duty and insurance. Do you not agree that the workplace parking levy is an unfair tax on me and other motorists?
Chris Carter
It is not uncommon to have to pay parking charges.
Richard Lyle
But this is over and above parking charges. I pay when I park in a car park, and I accept that, but this is something that has never been in place in our country and you are suggesting that I am going to have to pay it.
Chris Carter
It is inconsistent at the moment. Some employers charge employees to park, and others do not; you could say that that is unfair. A lot of employers pay a huge amount of money to provide car parks at no cost to the employees, and all the people who do not drive also bear the cost of that. In some ways, it is a fairer system because every employee who drives pays and it provides money and encourages behaviour change to more sustainable forms of transport, which is beneficial for everybody.
Richard Lyle
But you could just say to me, “Let’s put your income tax up by 10p, Mr Lyle.”
Chris Carter
You could do that. This is all about what could be described as nudge economics. It is about making small changes to encourage behaviour change.
Richard Lyle
Thank you.
The Convener
I am not sure from that whether Richard Lyle will move to Nottingham to work.
Richard Lyle
It is a lovely city. Tell the mayor and other members that I am asking for them.
The Convener
He might be coming. Maureen Watt gets another question.
Maureen Watt
I want to ask about business rates. Certainly, in Scotland, offices pay business rates on buildings and they might have to pay separate business rates for their car parking space. Is it the same in Nottingham? If it is, does the workplace parking levy go on top of that, or did they take away car parking business rates?
Chris Carter
I think that there is a component that relates to parking in the business rates, but I am not an expert on business rates. Obviously, the workplace parking levy is additional to business rates, but the charge could be passed on to employees. For example, an employer could make a profit out of the charges that they pass on, or they could raise more money by passing them on than the levy charges. Again, that is a decision for the individual employer.
The Convener
I am keen to take up that line of questioning. My understanding is that business rates are based on the rental value of the building, which will include the car parking spaces. Therefore, if there was a car parking levy, as a tenant of the building, I would argue that my rent would be too high and would have to come down by the value of the car parking charge. This is the question that I asked you earlier, and you suggested that there would be no change to business rates or reassessments in Nottingham. Are you convinced that that is correct?
Chris Carter
I might have to check the details of that. I am not aware that that is the case but I am perfectly happy to go away and check.
The Convener
I have another question. I am not sure whether you said that you had a choice between congestion charging, low-emission zones and the workplace parking levy and you plumped for the workplace parking levy because you thought that it was better than the other two. Is that what you said? Do you think all three of them could be imposed at the same time? There could be a congestion charge, a low-emission zone that, it is suggested, would mean a penalty for someone who does not meet the requirements, and a workplace parking levy. People could be taxed three times if that is what a city decides to go for. Do you think that is the way forward?
Chris Carter
In theory, you could do that, but why would a councillor want to go that way? It would mean creating a complicated and expensive mechanism to do it all.
In Nottingham in 2012, the options were the workplace parking levy and a road user charging scheme similar to the one that is used in London. Since then, the Government has introduced the concept of clean air zones, which are specifically designed to address air quality. That came in subsequently. When we were looking at the implications for air quality, we were not keen to go down the route of having a clean air zone and a workplace parking levy. That would be quite complicated and it would run the risk of double charges.
The workplace parking levy is aimed only at private car journeys, whereas a clean air zone can tackle other modes such as buses, taxis and vans, for example, and it does not necessarily have to include cars. The two schemes could be made to work together but you would have to think carefully about how to do it. We would not want the same people to have to pay twice; I do not think that that would be advantageous.
The Convener
I am going to push you on that. Your advice for a city that is considering such a scheme is that it should choose either the workplace parking levy, a congestion zone or low-emission zones, but it should not combine all three.
Professor Ison
It would be almost impossible to get all three in place. Road pricing has a long history. You could fill your room full of papers that have been written on road pricing. It is a difficult thing to get into place, as you well know. There are very few schemes around the world.
There are benefits to a road pricing scheme because it charges directly for the use of the road space and can charge where the congestion is. The workplace parking levy means charging where the vehicles terminate and so it is a complementary measure. Could you get both? It would be difficult, even for the most stable political council, to put both of those in place at the same time.
The Convener
Okay, so you are saying it is one or the other.
That brings us neatly to the end of our time. Chris and Stephen, thank you for giving evidence. It has been extremely useful and, if I may be so bold, extremely clear—both what you have said and the reception on the monitors.
11:13 Meeting suspended.11:21 On resuming—
The Convener
This is our second panel session on the workplace parking levy. I welcome Pauline McNeill, who joins the committee for this session. I also welcome Jim Grieve, interim partnership director of the south east of Scotland transport partnership—SEStran—and member of the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland; Councillor Anna Richardson, city convener for sustainability and carbon reduction for Glasgow City Council; and Richard Sweetnam, chief officer for city growth for Aberdeen City Council.
There is a series of questions. For those witnesses who did not see the first panel session, I will allow each member a certain amount of time in which to ask their questions and then we will have more questions at the end.
John Finnie
I have two simple questions. Do you support the proposal to allow local authorities, acting individually or in partnership with other local authorities, to introduce a workplace parking levy? If you support it or oppose it, can you explain why?
Jim Grieve (South East of Scotland Transport Partnership)
As a representative of a regional transport partnership that covers the south-east of Scotland, including the city of Edinburgh, and as a representative of SCOTS, I am happy to say that we support the principle of a workplace parking levy. However, SEStran has concerns; we feel that there should be a regional perspective on such an introduction, due to the issue that was raised earlier by Mr Smyth when he was speaking to the representative from Nottingham City Council, which is that all the advantages of the WPL might apply in the city and the disadvantages might fall on neighbouring councils. Despite that concern, as a tool for an authority to use in a discretionary way, be that a local authority or an RTP, we are broadly in favour of it.
John Finnie
Do you acknowledge that there is nothing in the amendments that would preclude local authorities working collaboratively? For example, one authority might have a scheme that has implications for a park and ride in another local authority area.
Jim Grieve
I acknowledge that; I read about that element. However, where local authority partnerships are already established, there is already a vehicle to look at that collaboratively and ensure consistency if more than one authority is looking at such an introduction at a similar time.
Councillor Anna Richardson (Glasgow City Council)
Glasgow City Council supports the principle of the power being passed to local authorities—last December, that was passed with a strong majority by committee. The main reason for that is that we are in the process of writing a new local transport strategy for the city and we are keen to have as many powers and as wide a toolkit at our disposal as possible, so that we can explore all the options and come up with the best strategy for our city.
John Finnie
Do you view it as a possible option, not necessarily a power that you would put in place straight away?
Councillor Richardson
At the moment, it is an option. We have not done the necessary analysis and work to decide whether we are in favour of implementing the policy. That work would come once the power was available to us.
Richard Sweetnam (Aberdeen City Council)
Aberdeen City Council has a similar conclusion. Along with other Scottish cities, it has looked at powers to drive inclusive economic growth through the empowering city government initiative and there are many levers, including levies. However, its position is that, once the powers are devolved and there is legislative ability to implement such levers, the debate, analysis and decisions can then take place in response to local need.
John Finnie
Connected to the proposal to give the power to local authorities is a requirement for consultation. Is the consultation robust enough? Do you have any concerns about the proposal?
Richard Sweetnam
From my point of view as a council officer, to date, there has been quite a quick turnaround in terms of the response time and therefore consultation at the local level, so further consideration is certainly needed with regard to the costs and benefits of any such scheme.
Councillor Richardson
We would be absolutely committed to doing as much consultation as possible as we developed a local transport strategy. With schemes such as the workplace parking levy, it is critical that we feed in everybody’s views. For example, we have put consultation at the heart of developing Glasgow’s low-emission zone policy. We have had huge amounts of engagement with different groups, including businesses, taxi drivers and specific representative organisations.
It is important to make policy alongside those who will be affected by it and to build in mitigation throughout the policy development, rather than consulting on a completed policy and then possibly having to amend it at that stage. If we got this power as a local authority, we would have those conversations with people across the board in the city and with all stakeholders throughout the process.
John Finnie
Could consultation go across authorities?
The Convener
You are cutting into other members’ time quite considerably, John.
John Finnie
I beg your pardon.
The Convener
Anna Richardson—you missed what I said to the first panel, which is that I try to catch witnesses’ attention when time is running short by waggling my pen, and the fear is always that if I get too vigorous with it, it will fly in their direction. I ask Jim Grieve to briefly answer the question that the other witnesses have responded to; we will then have to move on.
Jim Grieve
From the regional perspective, the regional transport partnership has a fundamental duty to provide a regional transport strategy. We suggest that initiatives such as a WPL should be part of that process, which carries with it very wide stakeholder engagement and consultation.
John Finnie
Thank you very much.
John Mason
I asked the first panel about the finances of all this. Nottingham had £50 million coming in over five years, which went to specific purposes such as for the tram, the buses and the train station. If you had that money coming in, would it be ring fenced?
Councillor Richardson
The amendment is clear that the expectation is for the money to be ring fenced, which is the approach that we would wish to take. With regard to the projects that it would be designed for, we would have to prioritise based on what the local transport strategy selected as the key priorities for the city. Sustainable transport is a key priority, which includes cycling, walking and public transport.
John Mason
I will press you on that. Nottingham seemed to have levered in quite a lot of extra money. It had that £50 million and ended up spending about £600 million, because it put in money and then levered in funds from other sources. If you had money coming in like that, would the same apply in Glasgow, Aberdeen or Edinburgh?
Councillor Richardson
Absolutely. That is the approach that we take when levering in additional funds, such as from the Scottish Government; we are very clear about where matched funds are from.
11:30Richard Sweetnam
We have about 7,000 employer parking spaces in the city council boundary, so any proceeds that were ring fenced for transport measures would be fairly insignificant. The Nottingham evidence showed that £400 million of investment came in from the Department for Transport for the tram scheme, so it was part of a much wider package.
Jim Grieve
I also have a word of caution. The Government has £80 million available this year for active travel, which is much increased from previous years—it applied last year as well. Much of the money requires a match from a council or an RTP. If a council is able to earn additional money, such as from a WPL, it would have more money available to match what it might gain from the Scottish Government. Smaller councils could lose out on attracting additional funds for things such as active travel if they do not have that facility or a concentration of traffic that might demand a WPL.
John Mason
That would be an argument for basing more things on the RTPs.
Jim Grieve
Indeed.
John Mason
Does the bill need to be changed to underline that point?
Jim Grieve
At the moment, the bill focuses purely on local authorities having the powers, which applies generally to all items, such as LEZs.
John Mason
Do you favour changing that?
Jim Grieve
I do.
Peter Chapman
Can Mr Sweetnam clarify whether Aberdeen City Council has, in principle, come out against support for a workplace parking levy? I thought that it had, but that is not what you said in answer to a previous question.
Richard Sweetnam
I clarify for the committee that I am a council officer. The council has not made any decision about the levy. In 2016, the council approved the Scottish cities alliance framework of powers and levers in and around cities to drive economic growth—the parking levy was one such lever.
The council’s position is that, if the powers were devolved to councils to make those decisions, it would look at that lever along with others. It has not discussed or debated it or made any decision about it.
Peter Chapman
Thank you for clarifying that. That is nearer to statements made by the leader of Aberdeen City Council to the effect that he did not think that it would be a good way to go. We will leave it there.
My question to all three witnesses is about how to assess whether any workplace parking levy would have a negative impact on inward investment or business development or, indeed, businesses deciding to exit the city totally. How can the possible effect of a levy be assessed?
Richard Sweetnam
The analysis of costs and benefits ex ante would need to be done. From the Aberdeen perspective, we would also need to consider the Aberdeen western peripheral route scenario, in terms of movement of vehicles in and out of the city. Without speculating about investment changes, it is worth bearing in mind that the Aberdeen city economy is driven by about 50,000 to 70,000 daily movements of people coming to work in the city, so the rural hinterlands of Aberdeenshire, Angus and Moray are important from an economic development perspective and would need to be included in the analysis. The impact on businesses of who pays, how that is accounted for and the administration would also need to feed into the analysis of the effect of any levy on the business community.
Peter Chapman
I agree that if Aberdeen City Council went down the road of charging, many of the people who would pay the charge would be from rural authorities, such as Aberdeenshire and Angus, yet the money would come to Aberdeen City Council.
Richard Sweetnam
The subject of who pays, whether that is an employer or whether the employer passes it on, is something that the analysis and the consultation will need to look at.
Peter Chapman
What are Anna Richardson’s thoughts on the original question?
Councillor Richardson
We are doing a lot of work to make Glasgow as appealing as possible for inward investment. We have shown that we can bring big investments in, but we can improve the transport network further and having ring-fenced money such as a workplace parking levy, as one tool among many, would enable us to make the city even more appealing to employers coming in. I felt very heartened, listening to Nottingham’s experience. From everything that it has put into its evidence, it appears to be a thriving place.
Jim Grieve
If you are trying to ensure that you do not lose business, how you approach the whole issue is fundamental. It has to be part of a strategy so that you can illustrate the advantages that may ensue from using the income from such a scheme. I hope that a consultation process that describes the potential advantages in the long term would help to ensure that you take people with you and do not chase them away from the city.
Peter Chapman
I will throw in one example. I have spoken to a major employer in Aberdeenshire who has several hundred parking spaces. He says that if the levy comes in, he will seriously consider moving his business. That was his immediate reaction—that it would be a step too far. Do any witnesses wish to comment on that?
Jim Grieve
I have a general comment. If you ask somebody as abruptly as that to pay for something that they did not previously pay for, you will not get a good reaction. Edinburgh suffered from that in relation to the congestion charge some years back. As I said, if you can describe it in the context of a bigger picture or strategy with potential advantages at the end of the process, the chances of success are much higher.
The Convener
I am afraid that we will have to move on. If Peter Chapman wants to come back in later, I am sure that there will be an opportunity.
Richard Lyle
I have four minutes and four questions that I want to ask.
The Convener
There will be no answers.
Richard Lyle
Jim Grieve—should the introduction of the proposed levy not be put to residents in a local referendum, similar to what happened in Edinburgh?
Jim Grieve
Yes.
Richard Lyle
Yes—I do not need anybody else to think about that. Councillor Anna Richardson, how much does Glasgow presently raise in parking charges, and would you not agree that the levy would give you millions of pounds of extra funding?
Councillor Richardson
I do not have that data with me, but that revenue certainly comes in and we spend it on transport.
Richard Lyle
Do you agree that Glasgow currently raises millions of pounds in parking charges?
Councillor Richardson
We do—
Richard Lyle
That is all I need to know. Does Richard Sweetnam agree that the workplace parking levy is an extra tax on motorists, who pay for petrol, car duty, car tax, tyres, insurance, running costs and servicing? It will require me, as a motorist, to pay an extra car tax.
Richard Sweetnam
It depends who pays. If the policy driver is to achieve low carbon and low emissions, the evidence from Norway shows that the lever it used was to waive VAT on low-emission vehicles. There are different ways of doing it, but if employees currently need to park in a city centre, it is not unusual for them to pay in some way.
Richard Lyle
I have one question for you all. I am sorry that I have rattled through, but sometimes the convener stops me in mid-flight. It is on exemptions. I have had emails from police officers, people from Glasgow airport, teachers and so on. If we are going to exempt NHS workers, which I agree with, in the two hospitals in the region where I stay the car parking will be exempt and staff can park there. However, what about a police officer who has to go and park in, say, Govan? The email that I had from one officer said that if he had to park outside, people would target his car. Teachers go to school every day and do a wonderful job—I compliment every one of them—and they park at the school and have designated car parks. Should we not, therefore, exempt police officers, teachers and others?
The Convener
Richard, I know why you did not look at me. Jamie Greene wanted to explore that area.
Richard Lyle
I said that I wanted to come in on it, too.
The Convener
I ask the witnesses to answer as quickly as they can on who should be exempt.
Councillor Richardson
The exemptions are one of the specifics that will be for local authorities to determine. It would not be appropriate for me to agree or disagree a list of exemptions to a hypothetical policy on which we have not yet had a robust democratic debate. I will not make any commitments today, but I agree that those are the types of conversation that we need to have during the consultation process.
Jim Grieve
As a starter, without naming specific professions, I suggest limiting the times when the workplace parking charge applies, so that shift workers could be exempt.
Richard Sweetnam
We need to look at the analysis in more detail. The more exemptions there are, the more the administrative burden, which we will have to think about in relation to the cost of running the scheme. However, exemptions certainly need to be looked at, where relevant.
The Convener
Does Jamie Greene have a question?
Jamie Greene
Thank you, convener, I am furiously trying to make up a question now. I will touch on various areas and, with your permission, come back in at the end if anything comes to mind.
Does a workplace parking levy disproportionately affect small and medium-sized businesses? I appreciate that there might be exemptions for very small businesses with a limited number of parking spaces, as is the case in Nottingham, but it is perhaps those in the middle who are most likely to be affected by the charge and to want to pass it on to their employees rather than sink it into their operating costs.
Councillor Richardson
I do not have any analysis on that at the moment. We have not done that piece of work at this point, so I cannot comment on exactly who would be most affected.
Jamie Greene
Does anybody else want to comment?
Richard Sweetnam
As I said earlier, Aberdeen City Council has not undertaken any consultation, but I anticipate that the business response will be to ask how the charge will be levied and administered, who pays and how it fits in the context of tax, non-domestic rates and so forth. Aberdeen is an incredibly strong private sector city—there are about nine private sector jobs for every 10 working-age people—so the consultation with employers is absolutely key.
Jim Grieve
Much depends on the level of the charge, which will be a difficult thing to establish. In my view, it will depend on what the council or authority is trying to achieve. Is it trying to reduce congestion and pollution or is it trying to make money?
If the level of charge is £400, which is similar to the Nottingham charge, that is not a huge sum of money for someone who is earning a reasonable amount to pay to park their car for a year if they travel to work. A medium-sized company might choose to distribute that to their employees. Proportionately, it is not a major cost. The whole response will very much depend on the level of the charge and its purpose.
Jamie Greene
On that note, what does it mean to your city? What do you think is the fundamental purpose of the workplace parking levy? The narrative from Nottingham was very much that it was a revenue-raising opportunity, which is perhaps why the council chose to operate that scheme rather than congestion charging or a low-emission zone. Each of your cities is considering low-emission zones, but the evidence that we heard suggested that it would not be wise to operate an LEZ and a workplace parking levy—that was Nottingham’s view. What would be the point of a levy in your city?
Councillor Richardson
A low-emission zone, which is already operating in Glasgow, is slightly different from a clean air zone, which is the English model that Nottingham would be working under. Clean air zones seem to involve a daily charge to go into the cities, whereas the low-emission zone involves a penalty notice and the expectation is that, by 2022, no vehicles that are not clean enough will come into the city. That is a different model from the workplace parking levy model, under which such vehicles are still able to come and go as they wish.
Glasgow City Council has a clear strategic plan to prioritise sustainable transport. That is what our local transport strategy will aim to achieve. It will be done through encouraging modal shift and reducing congestion to enable public transport to move more quickly and easily. That will complement the air quality work that is already going on.
11:45Richard Sweetnam
From an Aberdeen perspective, the policy drivers are key. The city centre master plan, the regional economic strategy, H2 Aberdeen, Oil & Gas UK’s vision 2035 and transport strategies all speak about low carbon, low emissions and energy transitions. The policy framework is clear, and the objectives of any scheme would need to align with that.
Jamie Greene
I hear lots of words but I still do not have any sense of what you think the levy is for. Is it to raise revenues? Is it to reduce congestion? Is it to improve air quality? Is it all of the above?
Richard Sweetnam
Aberdeen City Council has not developed a scheme—and therefore objectives—for a levy, but our existing policy framework is clear on low-carbon agendas. For Nottingham City Council, the levy might be about congestion charging.
The Convener
Anna Richardson, do you want to answer briefly? I want to push on with the next question.
Councillor Richardson
Glasgow City Council is looking to decarbonise as rapidly as possible, to improve air quality and people’s health and to reduce congestion in our city. All those objectives are achieved through similar policy drivers. However, one tool cannot achieve all that; it must work in synergy, through a strategy.
Colin Smyth
I will come back to the point that was made about the levy being a local authority charge and not a regional charge, and the practical implications of that. Our economic system drives all the jobs into the most congested cities in Scotland. Lots of people cannot afford to live in the centre of Edinburgh, for example, so they choose, rightly, to live in the wonderful part of the world that is the south of Scotland—in the Borders or Midlothian—and travel into Edinburgh every day for work.
Is it not the case that the proposal means that none of my constituents will have a say on a workplace parking levy in Edinburgh? If they go into Edinburgh, they will have to pay that charge, but not a single penny raised from it will be spent on transport in the Borders or Midlothian. Is that not the practical implication of the proposal?
Likewise, my constituents from Dumfries and Galloway travel into Glasgow. Can Councillor Richardson tell me what advantage a parking levy in Glasgow will be to them in relation to public transport in Dumfries and Galloway?
Councillor Richardson
We need to look at these things regionally. Glasgow city cannot thrive without the areas around it that give us that wide travel-to-work area. Any benefits that come into Glasgow will enable us to offer a better transport network throughout Glasgow. We have to maintain a significant road network within the city, a lot of which has to be funded through local authority revenue and capital. Any further income or revenue enables us to make it easier for people, wherever they come from in the region, to move well around the city, with less congestion.
In the previous evidence session, there was a conversation about how Nottingham City Council is looking at park and ride and other ways for people to move from further out of the city, including multimodal journeys. Those are the types of conversation that we need to have on a regional level. That is an important part of this conversation.
Richard Sweetnam
I agree that it is important. If there was a workplace parking levy scheme, it would depend on there being a reliable public transport alternative.
In Nottingham, for example, the benefits to the people in the hinterland of investing in a tram network are reliability of journey time and time savings efficiency. The investment does not need to accrue in the hinterland for those people to benefit.
Colin Smyth
I will come back on that point. The areas that have the biggest challenge in getting public transport are the rural areas, where bus services are being cut. You are saying that not a penny of the workplace levy will be spent on a transport initiative in areas outwith the cities. Bus services in the Borders will not be improved, because there will be no money raised for the Borders. Therefore, public transport, which we are supposed to be trying to improve, will not be improved as a result of a city-based scheme. Is that not a fact?
The Convener
Mr Sweetnam, I will let Jim Grieve come in first, as he has been waiting patiently to speak.
Jim Grieve
There is a reference in the Scottish Parliament information centre paper that was prepared for the committee to a potential concern that the levy
“will have the largest financial impact on the lowest paid car commuters.”
I share the concern that Mr Smyth is raising. It goes back to the need to incorporate the levy in an overall strategy, so that the investment is made equitably in areas around the city, not just in the city. In my view, Colin Smyth is right, in that the approach as proposed would potentially confine measures to one authority area.
Colin Smyth
I have a final point. Will the situation be made worse by Glasgow City Council’s proposal to extend the levy beyond workplace parking to parking by any visitors to the city from, for instance, my constituency, who want to go to shopping centres, supermarkets and so on? If Glasgow City Council proposes to extend any levy to all non-residential parking, will that not have a double impact on people who live outwith the city?
The Convener
Mr Smyth, you are very good at looking the other way when I am trying to catch your eye to tell you that your time is up. Anna Richardson can answer the question very briefly, and then we need to move on to the next question.
Councillor Richardson
Colin Smyth is absolutely right. In the council committee paper that was submitted in December, we suggested that the power should be for a non-residential parking levy, rather than a workplace parking levy. That does not mean that we are necessarily in favour of that approach, it means that we want to explore all the options and, by doing so, perhaps make the scheme of interest to local authorities that do not have as strong a travel-to-work situation as Glasgow has.
Mike Rumbles
From what you have said, if not from all the other evidence, it is obvious that councils would like to have as many powers as possible, but having powers is quite different from using them. I refer to the question that I asked the previous panel. Nineteen years ago, in 2000, Westminster passed legislation to give local authorities in England and Wales the ability to introduce a workplace parking levy, and only one council across the whole of England and Wales has used that power. If the Transport (Scotland) Bill, including the workplace parking levy provisions, is passed, will the position in Scotland be different? I would like an answer from all three witnesses.
Jim Grieve
It depends on what the authority intends to do or what it wants to achieve. If it wants to reduce congestion and clean the air in an area, I suggest that it goes for an LEZ. The workplace parking levy has the potential to bring in additional revenue to invest in public transport, which makes sense. However, it all depends on what the authority is trying to achieve.
Mike Rumbles
From your perspective, why do you think that no local authority in England and Wales, apart from Nottingham City Council, has taken up the approach?
Jim Grieve
That is a difficult question to answer. Maybe it is very difficult to get the introduction of the levy over the line. Nottingham succeeded, but I do not know whether other councils have tried and failed to get it over the line. Sorry, but I cannot speculate on that.
Councillor Richardson
Something that should bring comfort to the committee is that, although the power has not been introduced, city councils such as Glasgow have said that they would like to explore such an approach. That is not a commitment to use the power, but councils are showing a very keen interest in considering it and exploring whether it would be feasible to use it.
Mike Rumbles
That is my point. No council will say that it does not want our legislators to grant it the power, so we have to decide whether to do so. Am I right in saying that although no council would say that it does not want the power, that does not mean that councils will use it? You have basically said just that, have you not?
Councillor Richardson
I cannot speak to what other councils might or might not do, but in Glasgow we have made a clear case that we are working on our transport strategy and, as part of it, we would like to be able to explore the workplace parking levy. I cannot be stronger in my commitment, based on what Glasgow City Council has said so far. Certainly, we would explore the option and, if it was appropriate to do so, we would make proposals either for or against it.
Richard Sweetnam
Aberdeen City Council’s position is similar, in the sense that it will be up to the council to decide whether to use the power.
The Aberdeen economic policy panel, which is an independent panel of economists, supports the council on matters such as its bonds issue. In its first report, the panel made the observation that such powers are needed to drive local and regional economic growth. That remains the position. How the powers are used is for the council to decide.
Mike Rumbles
Have you any thoughts on why no other council in England has used those powers in 19 years?
Richard Sweetnam
There is also a shift in context between when the work was done in Nottingham in 2012 and now, in relation to low-emissions and low-carbon agendas.
Jim Grieve
The power is another tool in the box. My concern is that such tools will be available only to individual local authorities.
Mike Rumbles
It is all very well having tools in the box, but if you do not use them—
The Convener
I am sorry, Mike; we must move on to questions from Gail Ross.
Gail Ross
Anna Richardson, you have already stated that you cannot speak on behalf of other local authorities and I understand that, so my questions are for Jim Grieve. In rural areas, people have already expressed concern that a workplace parking levy will only really work if there are excellent public transport links. As Colin Smyth has already said, in certain rural areas, our public transport links could be improved. Is it likely that Highland Council, for example, which covers both urban and rural areas, would decide to implement such a levy in Inverness alone? Could you see that working?
Jim Grieve
My answer is my personal opinion. There is a nationwide problem with rural bus services, as we are all aware. Indeed, there is a wider problem, because, nationally, bus patronage is declining. Any initiatives that can start to reverse that trend would be positive for sustainable transport. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The Highlands are unique in many ways. It is hard to imagine something that is confined to the city of Inverness having any benefit to the surrounding rural areas. It would have to be approached on a wider basis than just the city.
The witnesses from Nottingham referred to park and ride, which is a valid tool for intercepting vehicles as they come towards the city and getting people to use sustainable transport or active travel. The whole initiative would have to be considered as part of a bigger picture. We cannot confine the thought to just a workplace parking charge to try to solve a problem in one particular city—we need to look at the bigger picture.
Gail Ross
It is a bit of a catch-22 situation in rural areas: investment needs to go into the public transport system first, but the money for that is raised by the workplace parking levy. The investment must come first.
Anna Richardson, in your submission, under the heading of resource implications, it says:
“Financial: None at this stage”.
Does Glasgow City Council envisage a big investment in public transport if it were to introduce the levy or do you think that the current public transport system is sufficient to provide for workplace parking?
Councillor Richardson
The point is that there are no financial resource implications in asking for the powers. Any analysis that has been done up to now has been done within our current staffing resources.
On public transport, the comments from the witnesses from Nottingham were very helpful: they said that Nottingham had a good transport system, but that it had to be better. Our aspiration for Glasgow is that public transport has to become much better. We are doing that already and not waiting for further powers. We are working more closely with the bus operators, investing huge amounts of money in walking and cycle infrastructure, and we also have the suburban rail and underground.
We have the beginnings of a very good system, but we also have higher aspirations for it. Having a power such as the workplace parking levy would give us another tool that could allow us to ring fence funds to make even greater investments or, more important, to match in even more significant amounts of money.
Gail Ross
Does Richard Sweetnam want to reply on behalf of Aberdeen?
The Convener
That was very delicately done—Gail Ross ignoring that I whispered to her that her time was up. Richard Sweetnam can come in briefly.
12:00Richard Sweetnam
Jim Grieve used the phrase “tool in the box”. I am fortunate to live and work in a city region that includes a significant rural hinterland. Connectivity is key to attracting and retaining talent, and those infrastructure projects remain—road and rail connectivity and journey times between Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the central belt. That is still an important issue and a vital part of the city region deal.
Maureen Watt
I think I picked up Anna Richardson saying that the paper that was submitted as part of the written evidence to our committee was discussed in December. Was that by a council committee or by the full council?
Councillor Richardson
It was by a committee.
Maureen Watt
So at least any pronouncements coming from Glasgow City Council are as a result of discussion of the paper by its transport committee. What about Aberdeen? Perhaps Jim Grieve could talk about Edinburgh. Have similar papers been put to Aberdeen City Council and City of Edinburgh Council, or are the pronouncements so far just the views of those from whom they have been requested?
Richard Sweetnam
There has been no committee paper on the WPL itself. As I said earlier, Aberdeen City Council looked at the framework for powers and levers and the work done by the Scottish cities alliance in 2016 that was approved as a framework from which to develop the discussion on the devolution of powers.
Jim Grieve
The City of Edinburgh Council submitted some written evidence to the committee, and is clearly in favour of the workplace parking levy. It is looking at and consulting on a low-emission zone, as well as what it calls the “city centre transformation”, which is removing cars from the city centre. The council is pursuing those two initiatives in parallel, but not yet a WPL.
Maureen Watt
Anna Richardson, you called for the introduction of a wide-ranging non-residential parking levy. Could you explain more about that, and tell us why you think that it is preferable to a WPL?
We also heard from Nottingham this morning that a good working transport system, as well as park and ride, is essential to the working of the scheme. We have heard the aspirations of Glasgow City Council. Can the other councils tell us what they would put in place to make the WPL work, if they are going to use it?
Councillor Richardson
In terms of the committee paper, the issue came forward before the amendment was up for discussion. Our consideration of the non-residential parking levy took place simply because, should a power be asked for, we felt it was appropriate to ask for the widest possible one, to give the most local flexibility. That would apply not just to cities with significant travel-to-work areas such as Glasgow, but perhaps to other local authorities with issues that mean that they would like to de-prioritise private car use, although not in a commuting perspective. They might have other considerations. The non-residential parking levy might also be useful to certain local authorities on a region-wide model, even within their own travel-to-work area.
Therefore, we put forward the paper, not to express a preference for applying WPL or the non-residential parking levy, but simply to ask for as wide-ranging a power as possible to enable us to do the fullest possible analysis of what the best option for Glasgow would be.
Maureen Watt
Do the others want to come in?
Jim Grieve
Maybe I can make a comment on Edinburgh and also the Lothians. Lothian Buses provides what is regarded as an excellent bus service and one of the best nationally, which is a big advantage for the urban area surrounding the city. However, the further out one goes, the less efficient the bus services are. That will have to be looked at as part of initiatives that are being pursued.
Richard Sweetnam
In a post-western peripheral route world, officers in Aberdeen City Council are looking at measures to deliver the transport objectives such as active travel and so on, in the city centre masterplan.
The Convener
I will try to bring Maureen Watt back in later if she wants to come in, but we have a series of questions from other members.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
My question is for Anna Richardson. Do you accept that people cannot get a bus to many parts of Glasgow and that, for many thousands of Glaswegians, using a car is not a choice, because there is no public transport or public transport is more expensive than driving? I put it to you that, even if you were given the powers, as things stand, Glasgow is not ready for a tax on going to work. Do you agree?
Councillor Richardson
We know that we have certain issues with the way that people move round our city and we want to tackle those. We have very low per capita car ownership in Glasgow—I think that it is the lowest of all local authorities—so we have almost a contradictory situation in which, as you say, some people have to drive because they have no other option but, on the other hand, the majority of people in Glasgow do not drive at all and have to rely on public transport. When we are considering our local transport strategy, we will try to address both those issues at once. We want to ensure that people are better connected and, at the same time, that they are connected more sustainably.
Pauline McNeill
Is the city ready for a tax now?
Councillor Richardson
In considering our local transport strategy, we will look at all the levers that we have available and at—
Pauline McNeill
So you are not willing to answer that, then.
Councillor Richardson
To answer it, at the moment—
Pauline McNeill
Is the city’s transport network ready now to have a workplace tax? Would it not be fairer to build up better transport links before you impose a tax on going to work?
Councillor Richardson
At the moment, we are working proactively with the bus operators to improve the services that they provide as well as improving other forms of sustainable transport across the city. That work is on-going, regardless of whether a workplace parking levy power were to be handed to us. We are committed to improving public transport within Glasgow. If we were to consider the workplace parking levy as an option, it would certainly be several years down the line. Our local transport strategy will set out all the different ways that we will improve public transport for the people of Glasgow.
Jamie Greene
Is it reasonable to ask certain groups of people to pay to park at their place of work when, demonstrably, they have no other choice but to drive to that place of work? That includes groups such as the lowest earners, key public sector workers, and those who are in receipt of work-related benefits.
Councillor Richardson
We need to have conversations about what will be appropriate exemptions. SPICe has pointed to Transport Scotland statistics that show that, generally speaking, those who drive to work are in the middle to higher earning households. We know that those who are more vulnerable or who have lower household incomes are more likely to use public transport, so we need to improve that and we need a way of investing to improve it.
Many of our own employees already pay to park at work. We have car parks that we charge our employees to park in, and others park in private car parks around the city. The principle of paying to travel to and from one’s work already exists, and a workplace parking levy is simply another way of facilitating that.
Jamie Greene
So you think that it is reasonable to expect people to pay that charge. That was my question.
Councillor Richardson
If we are to implement such a policy—we have not yet committed to doing so—the levy would be on the employer and it would be up to the employer to decide what to do. For our employees, we would consider what would be the appropriate thing to do.
Jamie Greene
Do the other witnesses have a view on that? It is a very important point.
The Convener
Jamie, you have pushed that point quite hard and there are quite a lot of other questions so, in fairness, I would like to bring in other members.
John Finnie
My question is for Mr Grieve, who I understand is wearing his regional transport partnership hat. We are here to look at the specifics. We have had a lot of helpful evidence on the generality of workplace parking, but I have a question on the specifics.
One of the amendments would insert after section 58 a new section entitled “Power to make and modify schemes”. I will read it to you, because I do not expect you to know it. Subsection (3) of that proposed new section states:
“Two or more local authorities may act jointly”.
We have a mechanism for two or more local authorities acting jointly in respect of transport matters, and that is the regional transport partnerships. Do you acknowledge that there are opportunities for regional transport partnerships to take a lead in addressing the understandable concerns that people have, which I hope will be offset by the fact that moneys that are raised in one area could be applied in another?
Jim Grieve
I accept that, but I go back to the need to align whatever the two authorities in question might decide to do with a wider regional strategy. Everything would have to fit together. Therefore, for me, the starting point is a regional transport strategy. Thereafter, authorities can work within that to achieve what they want to achieve. More than one authority could do that.
John Finnie
Absolutely. A national transport strategy is being consulted on at the moment. It would fit in well with that to have regional transport strategies and for each local authority to have a transport strategy. Do you agree?
Jim Grieve
Yes.
Richard Lyle
Both panels have said that it is the employers that would pay the levy, but that is not the case. Let me put this scenario to you: “I was talking to my bosses yesterday. They say I need to pay this tax. I cannae get a bus to my work, so what do I do?” What would that person do? Would they have to walk?
Jim Grieve
First, it would depend on whether there was an alternative. We would like to think that there would be an option to use a bus at a reasonable cost. As I said earlier, it would also depend on the level of charge that was proposed and what proportion of the cost of an individual’s journey to work it would make up. Obviously, that proportion would vary relative to what the person earned.
Richard Lyle
Parking in the St Enoch centre car park can cost me £5 or more, and if I go to the NCP car park, I need to take out a mortgage. I am sorry, but I do not agree with charging somebody who is on a low wage £400 a year.
Jim Grieve
The less someone earns, the more impact the levy will have. That is all the more reason to make sure that there are public transport or active travel alternatives.
Richard Lyle
So public transport is the answer.
Councillor Richardson
In its evidence, Nottingham City Council said that the levy represented a relatively small proportion of the costs of motoring. That is a significant point. The council also talked about its levy being implemented in a stepped way, which means that—perfectly reasonably—those who earn less pay a smaller amount if the employer has chosen to pass on the charge. That sounds like a very sensible way to proceed.
I welcome the proposed flexibility with regard to where the levy may be imposed. It could be imposed on a regional basis, it could cover an entire local authority area or there could be variation within the local authority boundary. There might be an argument for looking at those areas where there is already good public transport accessibility and those where there is not and which would therefore be less optimal for a workplace parking levy. That flexibility is exactly what we need to enable us to make a full analysis as part of our transport strategy work.
The Convener
Do you have another question, Richard?
Richard Lyle
I think that I have said it all. It is all about having decent public transport. Nottingham had decent public transport before it introduced the levy. I go back to Mike Rumbles’s questions about why other councils in England have not introduced this. Like Nottingham City Council, the City of Edinburgh Council has its own bus company. Sadly, the buses in Glasgow were sold off—there are no Glasgow city transport buses—but Edinburgh has Lothian Buses, while in Nottingham, there is Nottingham City Transport. That is the catalyst. If you have a good transport system, you might be able to get away with having a workplace parking levy, but—and I am sorry to say this—people in other areas are going to say, “I ain’t walking 3 miles to my work because I cannae afford your tax.”
The Convener
I think that that was a statement, so we will push on.
Stewart Stevenson
It would be nice to get the same nine and a half minutes that Richard Lyle had, but I suspect that I will not.
The Convener
You will not get it now.
Stewart Stevenson
I have three fairly brief questions, the first of which is very simple. On your reading of John Finnie’s amendments, do they seek to create a power to charge any individual for anything?
Jim Grieve
My understanding is that the employer would be charged.
Stewart Stevenson
That is fine—I just wanted to get that on the record. I do not want to suggest that you are suggesting that the proposal will not have consequences for employees. I am not trying to take you there—that is a different issue. I am simply establishing that the amendments do not seek to create the power to charge any individual and that they seek only to create the power to charge employers and businesses.
I think that I know the answer to my second question, but I want it to be clear and to get it on the record. Is it correct that, if Aberdeen City Council, for example, introduced a workplace parking levy, no company outside of the boundaries of the Aberdeen City Council area would pay anything? Is that your understanding of the amendments, Mr Sweetnam?
12:15Richard Sweetnam
As was alluded to earlier, these kinds of measures—and the north-east of Scotland, Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen are fantastic examples of this approach—tend to be done on a regional collaborative basis. I guess that it would be a question for Nestrans—the north east of Scotland transport partnership. We do not know how such a scheme might be implemented.
Stewart Stevenson
Forgive me, but I am focusing only on what the amendments say, not on how they might be implemented. Is it your understanding that the amendments do not create a power for Aberdeen City Council—or Glasgow City Council or any other city council—to charge anyone or any business outside of their own boundaries?
Richard Sweetnam
Yes.
Stewart Stevenson
That is fine.
My final question is an important one. If lots of people come to work in a particular council area, it presumably costs the councils in question a lot of money to support people coming into their cities. Given the cost to councils of providing the infrastructure to support those who come into cities such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, which is a problem that those councils have to address, is it not reasonable for them to control any revenues that derive from people and from businesses whose workers commute into their area? Is such a proposition philosophically reasonable? It would, of course, be equally reasonable to collaborate or co-operate through regional transport partnerships, given the interactions between policies.
I should say that we have 50 seconds left of the four minutes that I have been given.
The Convener
Would you like to respond to that very briefly, Anna Richardson?
Councillor Richardson
Certainly. The city of Glasgow, for which our council has responsibility, offers investment opportunities that benefit employees who live outside the city boundaries, and our public realm work makes Glasgow a more liveable and sustainable place for everybody and will, we hope, attract inward investment. However, those are financial burdens on a local authority that represents a large city. We are doing those things in the city, but that work also benefits those who live in the wider area outwith the city boundary.
The Convener
John Mason and Colin Smyth have questions, and then I, as convener, will take the last 15 minutes for my own questions. [Laughter.]
John Mason
Continuing with the park-and-ride theme, which was a big issue for Nottingham, I would say that one of the most successful park and rides that I am aware of is at Croy. It was not planned by anyone; people just started parking next to the station, and it has grown and grown to become very successful. I think that I am correct in saying that Croy is in North Lanarkshire, and people travel from there to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
However, there are no other similar park-and-ride schemes elsewhere around Glasgow. Somebody travelling from, say, Dumfries might want to park in the south-east of Glasgow and then travel in on our fabulous train network, but there is simply nowhere for them to park. Would it be a priority for Glasgow—and for other cities—to feed the park-and-ride side of things into the existing, very good public transport system?
Councillor Richardson
As Jim Grieve has said repeatedly, that is where the regional aspect is so important. The regional transport strategy being developed by Strathclyde partnership for transport and the local transport strategy being developed by Glasgow need to work in synergy. We cannot achieve everything that we want to achieve if we do not have that regional focus and if those who come into our city do not have other options.
John Mason
Amendment 9 refers to “a local authority”, and I accept Mr Finnie’s definition of a local authority as meaning two or more. However, should we add the phrase “regional transport partnership” so that the amendment says that “a local authority or a regional transport partnership may” do A, B, C, D and E?
Jim Grieve
I would certainly say yes, but I would be interested in hearing my colleagues’ views.
Councillor Richardson
The committee paper that we put to Glasgow City Council talked about the potential for a regional approach, so we certainly do not disfavour that.
Colin Smyth
In his question, Stewart Stevenson implied that, because it would be a levy on employers, organisations and businesses, it would somehow not impact on employees. Can we just be clear that, under the bill, the levy can be passed on to employees, as, indeed, has been the case in more than 50 per cent of the Nottingham examples? Is that your understanding?
Councillor Richardson
Passing the levy on is one of the tools to enable behaviour change. What is being passed on in the levy is the disincentive to drive, and the incentive in using more sustainable transport is that the money is reinvested in better options.
Colin Smyth
So is it clearly impossible to ban businesses from passing the levy on? If the levy were imposed on businesses and they were banned from passing it on, could they easily find a way around it by, say, introducing car parking charges?
Councillor Richardson
We would not want to ban its being passed on, because that is part of what leads to the behaviour change that we want to see as we become more sustainable.
Colin Smyth
As far as passing it on is concerned, do you think that one of the bill’s weaknesses is that it does not make it absolutely clear that the tax should not be regressive? After all, people on £100,000 should not have to pay the same as somebody on the living wage. Would you support putting into the bill something that made it clear that the levy should be more progressive, as it would be based on people’s ability to pay and would not simply be a flat rate for all businesses?
Councillor Richardson
I do not want to comment on what the exact wording of the bill should be, or whether certain wording should be in the bill or left to local authorities to determine. However, the conversation in the previous session about making the levy more progressive was about taking a positive approach, and it is one that we would want to encourage.
The Convener
We appear to have a follow-up question from Mike Rumbles, which I will allow, and then I will ask my questions.
Mike Rumbles
Reading the actual amendments does help. For example, amendment 17 refers to
“charges ... by the occupier of the premises, or ... in such circumstances as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations specify, by such other person as may be specified.”
That is a wide open door. If we pass this provision into law, it would give Scottish ministers by regulation—which we cannot amend—the power to charge the employee if they so wish. I have read out what the proposal says. Do you agree?
Jim Grieve
If that is what it says, your interpretation is correct.
The Convener
I have a couple of questions, the first of which is for Anna Richardson, who has obviously done some deep thinking on this issue in order to work out whether it is a good idea. What income might Glasgow derive from a workplace parking levy?
Councillor Richardson
We have not yet reached the stage of doing that analysis. Until we know whether the power will be available to us, all we can do is use our resources to look at what we can do to improve transport. We do not have any data on exactly how much money could come in from a levy.
The Convener
That seems an odd way to go about it. Would you not start with a cost benefit analysis and then home in on the issue? Glasgow, like most of Scotland, has encouraged workplaces to develop their sites and build in workplace parking, with their square meterage dictating how many car parking spaces they can have. Having forced businesses with bigger premises to provide more parking spaces, you now seem to be suggesting that it is appropriate to tax them on that past policy. Is that not a complete reversal?
Councillor Richardson
I must admit that I am not an expert on the planning policies on that side of council policy. We have different planning rules for the minimum and maximum parking spaces that are required for planning purposes. However, policy moves on, and what was deemed the right way of developing a city 20 or 25 years ago will have changed. I do not think that that is a negative thing.
The Convener
It is like the argument about diesel and petrol cars. People were encouraged to do one thing and then hammered for it later, and the whole thing has been quite difficult.
Before I ask my last question, I want to make a final point about planning. If the workplace parking levy is introduced, might businesses start to appeal their ratings values, which are, after all, based on rental values? If businesses are paying substantial taxes for parking places, they might look at reducing the rentals that they pay to landlords. As a former surveyor, I know that I would have put that to the assessor immediately. Might that be a problem?
Councillor Richardson
I do not have expertise in that area, but the point is certainly interesting.
The Convener
Richard Sweetnam, would you like to come back on that?
Richard Sweetnam
I would observe only that that would be an inevitable consequence of any consultation. Indeed, there has been the same speculation in relation to the transient tourism levy. The impact of such charges on businesses needs to be looked at in the round.
The Convener
Finally, I have a single selection question for you. Bearing in mind that the purpose of the workplace parking levy is to improve the environment that we live in, which of the following measures would you place at the top of your list to get the best environmental results: low-emission zones; congestion charging; or the workplace parking levy? Each of you may choose one of those.
Councillor Richardson
We already have a low-emission zone, which we see as an air-quality tool. The aim of implementing the workplace parking levy would be to reduce congestion and improve traffic movement around the city, which is a different issue.
The Convener
That was a very good politician’s answer. What about Jim and Richard?
Jim Grieve
Without a doubt I would choose low-emission zones.
Richard Sweetnam
As far as city centre rather than city council boundaries are concerned, low-emission zones are pretty key to attracting global international talent to live and work in the city centre.
The Convener
This has been a very interesting evidence-taking session. I thank our witnesses for their evidence to the committee, which will go a long way towards informing our views on the amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
Meeting closed at 12:27.22 May 2019
22 May 2019
29 May 2019
Changes to the Bill
MSPs can propose changes to a Bill – these are called 'amendments'. The changes are considered then voted on by the lead committee.
The lists of proposed changes are known as a 'marshalled list'. There's a separate list for each week that the committee is looking at proposed changes.
The 'groupings' document groups amendments together based on their subject matter. It shows the order in which the amendments will be debated by the committee and in the Chamber. This is to avoid repetition in the debates.
How is it decided whether the changes go into the Bill?
When MSPs want to make a change to a Bill, they propose an 'amendment'. This sets out the changes they want to make to a specific part of the Bill.
The group of MSPs that is examining the Bill (lead committee) votes on whether it thinks each amendment should be accepted or not.
Depending on the number of amendments, this can be done during one or more meetings.
First meeting on amendments
Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 5 June 2019:
First meeting on amendments transcript
The Convener
Agenda item 2 is consideration of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and his supporting officials.
I will explain the procedure briefly. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in a group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention. If he has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by my inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.
Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee will move immediately to the vote on the amendment.
If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in a division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote.
The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. Today, we hope to get through parts 1 and 2 of the bill.
Before section 1
09:30The Convener
Amendment 40, in the name of Colin Smyth, is in a group on its own.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
Amendment 40 sets out key principles that I believe should be at the heart of our transport system. The Transport (Scotland) Bill provides an opportunity to place those principles in legislation. Setting them in legislation would provide a long-term vision for our transport system at a time when the Government is about to embark on a review of national transport strategy.
Amendment 40 would place a duty on relevant bodies to act in line with those principles when carrying out such a review and would ensure that transport policy is guided in a meaningful way.
I believe that the principles reflect the priorities that most of us hold for transport, while being broad enough not to be restrictive. Putting the principles on a statutory footing would help to guide policy making to deliver the outcomes that we want to see.
Of course, if members have specific concerns about the wording of amendment 40, there will be an opportunity at stage 3 to add to or amend it.
There is precedent for setting out principles such as this in law. Section 1 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 clearly sets out the Scottish Government’s Scottish social security principles.
I am sure that I will get unanimous support for the amendment to get us off to a winning start.
I move amendment 40.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I have a number of comments about the way in which this amendment is constructed. Subsection (2)(a) says:
“transport is a key enabler for the realisation of other human rights”.
It is worth reminding ourselves that everything that we do in this Parliament is already covered by a requirement to conform to the European convention on human rights. Therefore, unless I hear otherwise, I believe that that statement is superfluous. For the reason that I have just stated, all legislation could equally be described thus.
Further on in the amendment, subsection (2)(b) states:
“the delivery of transport is a public service and supports the common good”.
When it stands naked and without qualification, the word “transport” presents a substantial difficulty. My private car is transport and a commercial aircraft is transport. Moreover, subsection (2)(d)(iii) talks about ensuring
“that affordability does not act as a barrier to people accessing transport services”.
Because of the term that is used, that would include my getting on a first-class flight from Scotland all the way to Australia; and there would be a requirement that the transport system makes that affordable for me.
I have not addressed the underlying policy issue that is associated with amendment 40, but its construction does not meet the needs of any policy that I could sensibly support.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
I thank Colin Smyth for lodging his amendment. It is a good start to the session.
There are some admirable intentions in the wording. Delivering public transport that is accessible, universal, affordable, geographically consistent and sustainable are all themes that, since it started, this committee has debated in great detail. However, they are policies. I commend Mr Smyth for them, but I suggest that he puts them in his party’s next manifesto rather than in the Transport (Scotland) Bill. The list of policies that he wants the Government to take on board is overly prescriptive and he does not provide any context as to how they would be achieved or how much that would cost. For that reason, the Conservatives are unable to support amendment 40.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Like others, I think that the principles are admirable and I support them. I listened to what Mr Stevenson said, but that would not preclude support—or clarification, if that was thought to be necessary. I will certainly support Colin Smyth’s amendment.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
I welcome the fact that Mr Smyth’s amendment looks at transport in its wider strategic context, because it is easy to get bogged down in the detail of legislation and lose sight of the bigger picture. Much of the language of the amendment reflects the work that the Government has been doing to review the national transport strategy, on which we are due to consult this summer. The strategy puts inequality and the promotion of fairness, accessibility, sustainability, health and wellbeing at the heart of transport, and all those themes are reflected in the provisions proposed by Mr Smyth.
Our draft vision for the strategy is that we will have a sustainable, inclusive and accessible transport system helping to deliver a healthier, more prosperous and fairer Scotland for communities, businesses and visitors. The vision is underpinned by four themes. Those include a priority to promote equality, which is designed to achieve outcomes of affordability and accessibility of transport. That sits alongside three further priorities relating to tackling climate change, helping our economy to prosper and improving our health and wellbeing. Many of the principles in Colin Smyth’s amendment are, therefore, already at the heart of the work that the Government is taking forward through its review of the national transport strategy, and we will seek to embed them in a national strategic context when the review is concluded.
There is an argument that policy principles of that kind are better expressed in strategic guidance. Their lack of technical precision may sit uneasily in legislation and the relative certainty and rigidity with which they would require to be interpreted in that context may be counterproductive. Guidance documents—backed by statute, if necessary—offer a more flexible and responsive means by which to set out key strategic objectives for the delivery of public functions. I am, therefore, not persuaded that statutory duties are the most effective means of achieving the aims that Mr Smyth has in mind.
Those concerns aside, certain aspects of the way that the amendment is drafted are potentially problematic. The main duty in subsection (1) is that:
“The Scottish Ministers, local authorities, local transport authorities and Regional Transport Partnerships”
must, when exercising
“their functions in relation to transport”
do so
“with the objective of adhering to the principles set out in subsection (2).”
It is not clear what legal consequences are intended to follow if a person subject to the duty does not adhere, or can be shown not to have adhered, to the principles in taking forward their policy.
The functions to which the duty is to apply are also uncertain. The phrase
“functions in relation to transport”
may capture functions of a broadly strategic nature to which the principles in subsection (2) or ones like them may be relevant, but it may also encompass operational transport functions such as traffic regulation, for which obligations to adhere to principles of that kind may be inappropriate when set against the public safety imperative that underpins the exercise of those functions.
The general thrust of the principles in subsection (2) is commendable, but the specific framing of some of them could also cause some ambiguity and have consequences for their legal effect.
For all those reasons, although I am sympathetic to Mr Smyth’s aims, I cannot support amendment 40. However, I would like to consider whether we can embed the principles in our national transport strategy or, alternatively, agree to return at stage 3 with a revised amendment. I hope that Colin Smyth will agree to work with me and my officials to consider that.
Additionally, I am aware that Mr Smyth has lodged amendments on accessibility and on meeting the needs of those living in poverty and, in relation to bus services, people on low incomes. The amendments will of course be debated later but, between now and stage 3, I would like to explore with Mr Smyth whether it may be more appropriate to set out issues of that kind in the transport principles, whatever form those may take.
I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 40 but, if he does so, I urge the committee to vote against it.
The Convener
Thank you for that comprehensive explanation.
Colin Smyth
As a nation, I think that we have lost sight of the bigger picture of what our transport system should be about, as was mentioned. In particular, there is the fact that the system is and should be a public service that is accessible to all. The specific points that Stewart Stevenson and the cabinet secretary raised sounded like concerns over specific wording, which can clearly be dealt with at stage 3. I give a commitment to Jamie Greene that the points will be in the next Labour manifesto, and I look forward to receiving his full support for them.
In light of the cabinet secretary’s offer to work on the detail of the principles and, potentially, on an amendment at stage 3 or on setting out the principles in another way, I am happy not to press amendment 40 and to take up the offer to discuss the matter further.
Amendment 40, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
Amendment 32, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 220 and 201.
Jamie Greene
In relation to low-emission zones, I want to add from the outset a primary objective that sets out a clear purpose that each zone should follow. Amendment 32 stipulates:
“The purpose of a low emission zone … is to reduce the transport-related emissions and … particulate matter within and in the vicinity of the zone.”
The wording has been lifted from the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018, which is United Kingdom legislation that transposes a European Union directive of a similar name and nature and that provides an up-to-date definition of emission standards that is consistent across the UK and Europe. I realise that the amendment seems rather detailed and specific, but I feel that it is necessary for part 1 of the bill to contain an overarching and specific purpose.
My rationale for that is threefold. First, it would remove any ambiguity over what the zones are for and what they are trying to achieve. In my view, the whole point of low-emission zones is to improve air quality within and in proximity to the zone. Reducing congestion, improving average road speeds and generating revenue for local authorities are all by-products of zones, but I want public support for the zones and I want to take drivers and other road users with us on the journey. We need to make it clear to them that the measure is not just a tax on motorists and that the zones will have a positive and measurable impact on their cities.
Secondly, a defined purpose would allow us to monitor the success or otherwise of a zone. If nitrogen oxide emissions and particulate matter levels do not fall as a result of a zone, something is amiss. If we have a vague definition of what the zone is for, it will be virtually impossible to ascertain whether it has been successful and achieved its aims. When the committee questioned representatives of Nottingham City Council over the workplace parking levy, they found it difficult to pinpoint the specific environmental benefits of the measure, as it is part of a package of measures. Instead, the levy is seen largely as a revenue-generating activity, which low-emission zones are not—and nor should they be.
Thirdly, I have lodged later amendments that would mean that the revenue that was generated from fines under a zone would have to go towards meeting the overarching objective of the zone.
I hope that members agree that the bill should set out a purpose for low-emission zones. My wording tries to identify something that is measurable rather than a vague concept that is impossible to measure against or that could be used subjectively to decide whether a zone is working. I appreciate that Colin Smyth’s amendment 220 tries to do something similar, but, in my view, the wording is such that it is helpful but unmeasurable. For that reason, I think that my wording is better.
09:45I am proposing a primary objective for the zone. Amendment 201 relates to section 9, on setting up a zone, and requires that local authorities set objectives that complement and contribute towards the primary objective of the zone. The amendment stipulates that any such secondary objectives that are set by local authorities must be aligned with the primary purpose in the bill.
I move amendment 32.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 220, in my name, introduces a definition of the purpose of an LEZ, which was one of the committee’s recommendations at stage 1. Amendment 220 helps to clarify the purpose of LEZs and, in practical terms, it will ensure that all schemes are developed in line with that overall aim.
I appreciate that the bill already requires LEZs to contribute towards local authorities’ objectives under the Environment Act 1995, but I believe that we should be clear about the specific role that is to be played by LEZs beyond local authorities’ existing responsibilities.
As we have heard, Jamie Greene has lodged a similar amendment—amendment 32—but I have some concerns about the specific wording of that amendment, which excludes PM10 particulate matter. PM10 particles are among the most dangerous elements of air pollution, and reducing them is crucial to having a successful LEZ. If amendment 32 is agreed to, it is critical that reference to PM10 is added at stage 3.
However, I also have a broader concern about how specific amendment 32 is. As new technologies are developed, there is a chance that new pollutants will be released into the atmosphere. If we detail in the bill what constitutes air pollution, there is a risk that the bill will not be fit for purpose in the long term. I believe that the language that is used in my amendment provides a more comprehensive and more future-proofed definition. To use Jamie Greene’s phrase, I think that my wording is better.
Additionally, my amendment calls for
“ongoing improvements to ... air quality”.
That is important. There is no safe level of air pollution, and LEZs should seek to continually improve air quality as long as they are in place, not simply to reduce pollution on a one-off basis.
Stewart Stevenson
Like Colin Smyth, I think that the omission of the PM10 particles from Jamie Greene’s amendment 32 is quite serious. I had a quick look at the legislation that Jamie Greene referred to, but, in the one minute that was available, I was not able to read it comprehensively.
The definition of “fine particulate matter” in Jamie Greene’s amendment, which describes it as
“being particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometres”
presents a substantial difficulty. The definition of a particle includes the words “atom” and “molecule”. Of necessity, emissions from a vehicle in an LEZ will contain atoms and particles even if they happen to be benign rather than malevolent. Therefore, as a definition, it fails the test—unless Jamie Greene can point me to a further qualification in the legislation that he referred to. I was having a quick look at it to see whether there is a definition of “particle” that makes more sense than the common dictionary definition.
I also have difficulties with the construction of Colin Smyth’s amendment 220—although I have no objection to the underlying policy objective—in that it refers to
“ongoing improvements to the level of air quality”.
I am not sure that “the level of” is required, and I do not know what it means. I have a suspicion that the word “level” creates an ambiguity that is unhelpful to the policy intention.
I have a difficulty with putting “ongoing improvements” on the face of the bill, because the ultimate success of a low-emission zone scheme is that there are zero harmful emissions. At that point, on-going improvements will cease to be possible.
Although we understand the policy intention, the construction of the amendment does not adequately support it.
John Finnie
Jamie Greene’s amendment 32 is the first of a series of amendments that, despite his apparent enthusiasm for low-emission zones, dilute the purpose of the bill. I am not remotely technical, but others have alluded to the science of the issue, and it is my understanding that, because his amendment is so narrowly defined, it misses some of the pollutants that we are concerned about.
Inevitably, we get into discussions about the competence of amendments. They are competent; otherwise, they would not be here. If people take exception to what they do or suggest that they are not comprehensive enough, so be it. My view is that Colin Smyth’s amendment is broad enough for the purpose, and I will be supporting his and not Jamie Greene’s amendment.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 32, 220 and 201 call for the purpose of an LEZ to be included in the bill. In my view, the amendments are too restrictive. Amendment 32 would set the purpose of an LEZ around the reduction of two types of transport-related emissions: nitrogen oxide and particulate matter with a diameter that is
“equal to or less than 2.5 micrometres.”
As other emission types might come into scope in the future, confining the purpose of an LEZ to addressing only those two types of pollutant is far too restrictive.
Amendment 201 would limit any objective that was specified for a scheme to ensure that it related to the purpose of a scheme as set out by amendment 32: improving air quality through the reduction of two types of pollutants. As before, that would produce quite restrictive boundaries in the framing of an LEZ and, in my view, would potentially compromise its effectiveness.
Amendment 220 would be an alternative to amendments 32 and 201, restricting the purpose of an LEZ to the improvement
“of air quality in all or part of a local authority area”
only. The amendment is broader than the other two amendments in the group, but it would still result in the restriction of how LEZs could be formulated. I agree that low-emission zones must be implemented where appropriate to improve air quality. That is why section 9(4) sets out a clear requirement that local authorities put in place LEZs that help to meet
“the air quality objectives prescribed under section 87(1) of the Environment Act 1995”.
However, in implying that that is the sole purpose of an LEZ, amendment 220 ignores the opportunity—both now and in the future—for other benefits to be realised in some shape or form by a local authority introducing an LEZ—for example, through better place making. Such benefits might include congestion management and bus prioritisation. It is important that local authorities have the flexibility to set their scheme objectives, and thus their LEZ purpose, as they see fit.
I suggest that we outline the purpose of an LEZ and how to set objectives in the forthcoming LEZ guidance. Sections 1(1) and 9(4) can also be used to explain the purpose of an LEZ. It is clear that LEZs must be put in place, first and foremost, to improve local air quality. If stakeholders continue to feel that the purpose should be outlined in the bill, that could be considered and developed in conjunction with the Government ahead of stage 3. However, as the three amendments are currently written, the purpose is too restrictive and would hinder future flexibility in the development and purpose of LEZs.
For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 32, 201 and 220 at this stage, but I am open to considering how they could be progressed ahead of stage 3. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to press amendments 201 and 222. If they are pressed, I urge the committee to reject them.
Jamie Greene
I thank members for their comments and for the spirit in which their feedback was given.
The purpose of amendment 32 was not to be overly prescriptive and unhelpful, although I accept that my approach is prescriptive in that there are a number of other ways in which air quality can be measured. The point that I am trying to make, which I hope the cabinet secretary will pick up on, is that the purpose of a low-emission zone should be directly linked to air quality.
It is interesting that the cabinet secretary said that a local authority might have other reasons for setting up a zone, such as managing congestion. If that is the case, the local authority should look at the measures that are best suited to its objectives, such as congestion charging, parking levies and other forms of management of traffic flow and volume in city centres.
From day 1, I have thought that the purpose of a low-emission zone is to improve air quality in the cities or zones in which they operate. The point of amendment 32, albeit that the wording is perhaps misguided, was to ensure that we put something measurable in the bill—because, if nothing is measurable, we will never know whether the zones have succeeded. It is not about how much money a zone raises or how many fewer cars there are in the cities and their average speed; it is about improving air quality.
If the Government is willing to work with the members who lodged amendments because they take the view that the bill should contain a provision that allows us to reflect on the purpose of the zone and send the public the message that the purpose is to improve air quality in the cities in which they live, I am sure that we will be happy to work with the Government.
The provision that is buried away in section 9, on page 5, which requires one of the objectives to include a reference to another piece of legislation, is not strong enough. I hope that the Government will reflect on that. On that basis I will not press amendment 32.
Amendment 32, by agreement, withdrawn.
Colin Smyth
In the light of the cabinet secretary’s commitment to work on the wording of a potential amendment at stage 3, I will not move amendment 220.
Amendment 220 not moved.
Section 1—Restriction on driving within a zone
The Convener
The next group is on low-emission zones: exemptions. Amendment 221, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is grouped with amendments 33, 34, 2, 30, 31, 203, 56, 57, 3 and 3A.
Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
I recognise the importance of low-emission zones and the purpose that they will strive to achieve in relation to air quality.
However, community transport operators who access city centres to bring service users to essential health and social appointments must not be penalised for and obstructed in carrying out their duties.
Currently, there is only one electric minibus on the market, and the Energy Saving Trust’s previous bus retrofit fund did not apply to minibuses. Community bus operators are not well placed to embrace technology and will need time to raise funds to invest in cleaner vehicles. Therefore, the Government should commit to an exemption for community bus operators. I hope that the committee will support amendment 221.
I move amendment 221.
Jamie Greene
I will be happy to support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 221 and amendments 30 and 31, in the name of Murdo Fraser—I am sure that Murdo will speak eloquently to them. In the interests of time, I will speak only to the three amendments in my name in the group: amendments 33, 34 and 203.
In essence, amendment 33 provides for an exemption to allow emergency services to enter and exit low-emission zones without incurring fees. The amendment proposes that we exempt police who enter the zones for official purposes, ambulances that are carrying out their functions, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Her Majesty’s Coastguard.
10:00The wording of amendment 33 has been taken almost verbatim from another part of the bill. I feel that the exemptions that are offered and enjoyed in relation to pavement parking in part 4 of the bill should be enjoyed by the same bodies in section 1. I hope that the minister will find that request to be reasonable. It seems to be only reasonable to allow those types of vehicles an exemption in order to allow them to enter zones as required. It is hoped that, in time, they will operate fully compliant fleets, but I hope that amendment 33 gives them some comfort, until they do.
Amendment 34 might strike some people as odd, but I will explain to the minister and the committee why I would include an exemption for diplomatic vehicles. Members might be aware that when the congestion charge was introduced in London, foreign diplomats argued that it was a tax and that, therefore, under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, they were exempt from paying it. The authority believed that it was a charge and that diplomats should have to pay for entering the zone. As of May 2019, it is estimated that £116 million is owed in unpaid fees. That has resulted in a lengthy, often amusing and, at times, public dispute, which has caused quite substantial legal costs for the public authority concerned.
In order to avoid such a dispute occurring north of the border, we should simply decide whether diplomatic vehicles should be excluded from the emissions zones. I have no preference or view, but I have lodged amendment 34 to ensure that we settle the matter by making it clear whether they are in or out.
John Finnie
Jamie Greene says that he has no view one way or another, although he has lodged the amendment. Is that your position?
Jamie Greene
Yes. Let me explain why. It is for the Government to take a view on whether diplomatic vehicles should be exempt from paying the fees. I am trying to ensure that we do not end up in a situation in which there is ambiguity, with people arguing that the fines should not be paid. The scale is different in London, as there are far more diplomatic vehicles there, and the scale of the unpaid charges and fines is, accordingly, substantial. However, the purpose of the amendment is to give the Scottish Government the opportunity to reflect on the issue and to take a view on it. I would be interested to hear the minister’s response.
My final amendment in the group, amendment 203, is on time-limited exemptions. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Government the opportunity to explain what it thinks the practical implications of time-limited exemptions are. When we reviewed the bill, we thought that section 18, on temporary suspensions for events, was logical and clear. However, it was unclear to many of us what the time-limited exemptions could or would be used for and, therefore, why a one-year cap was required. I hope that the proposal that the cap be removed will prompt some debate around what the purpose of the time-limited exemption is, and provide some clarity around the Government’s logic behind the one-year cap. When we have that clarity, the committee could take an informed view about whether there is a need for such a cap.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I declare that I am the convener of the cross-party group on the Scottish Showmen’s Guild.
I support the introduction of low-emission zones in cities, towns and villages, where required, but I have lodged amendment 2 on behalf of the Scottish section of the Showmen’s Guild because its members might have to drive through low-emission zones to erect funfairs at certain times of the year. Before anyone asks me what a funfair is, I will give you the “Oxford English Dictionary” definition. It is:
“a fair consisting of rides, sideshows, and other amusements”.
Due to the type of equipment that showmen have to erect, their vehicles can be large, and most run on diesel. Showmen have types of vehicle that are not on the road every day of the week, so they might keep a vehicle longer than other companies will, which means that a vehicle that they use might not comply with low-emission standards.
Showmen have been allocated exemptions in most low-emission zones in England. The Transport for London website says that showmen’s vehicles
“are eligible for a 100% discount from the LEZ daily charge if they are registered to a person following the business of a travelling showman”
and are
“Used during the performance, or ... Used for the purpose of providing the performance, or ... Used for carrying performance equipment”.
Amendments 3 and 3A specify that local authorities must grant exemptions to showmen’s vehicles that are being driven through low-emission zones to set up or dismantle funfairs. A showman may have several pieces of equipment to take to the fairground and have to transport each ride separately. He or she might go through the zone on the same day towing a piece of equipment one way and coming back with no equipment attached. He or she might have to go through the zone many times, so I have lodged amendment 3A, which seeks to amend amendment 3, in order to cover that.
I point out again that low-emission zones in England have granted showmen and persons who are employed in the erection of funfairs a 100 per cent discount from LEZ charges.
With regard to the other amendments in the group, unfortunately I cannot support any of them.
The Convener
Oh, well. There you go, Mr Lyle.
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Like other members, I support the principle of LEZs. My amendment 30 is intended to exempt historic vehicles from the rules on LEZs—a historic vehicle being defined as any vehicle that was
“constructed more than 30 years before 1 January of the year in which it is driven ... within a low emission zone.”
My amendment 31 would extend that provision to vehicles from other countries that meet the same criterion.
I state that I have a personal interest in historic vehicles as the owner of a classic car and a member of the Stag Owners Club. I am grateful to the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs for its assistance in drafting my amendments and making the arguments. I know that its members have been energetically lobbying MSPs on the issue over the past few days. The FBHVC is an umbrella group that represents over 540 member clubs throughout the United Kingdom that have a total membership of more than a quarter of a million historic vehicle owners and enthusiasts. Interest in historic vehicles sustains economic activity that is worth £5.5 billion annually to the UK economy, and supports the employment of nearly 35,000 people right across the country.
Historic vehicles include cars, motorcycles, buses, coaches, lorries, vans, military vehicles, tractors and steam engines. Such vehicles are no longer used primarily, if at all, as means of transportation, but are preserved, and in many cases have been restored, for their historic interest. Their owners exhibit them at exhibitions, shows, community fêtes and so on, and they have to use the highways in order to attend those events, but also to participate in touring events and for general leisure purposes.
Without an exemption, individuals who live within an LEZ would not be able to own or operate a historic vehicle, which in my view would be an unreasonable restriction. Moreover, historic vehicles would no longer be able to drive through an LEZ, which would mean that historic vehicle exhibitions, rallies and events could no longer be held at venues in such places. The events are popular with the public and have major economic benefits. I feel that it would be an unintended consequence of the introduction of LEZs if historic vehicles were excluded in that fashion.
I will give two other brief examples. The first is military vehicles. Today is the 75th anniversary of D day, as part of which we will see a parade of historic military vehicles on the south coast. If we do not exempt historic vehicles from LEZs, we will not be able to have parades of historic military vehicles down Princes Street or other streets in the centres of our cities.
The other example is wedding cars. People like turning up for their wedding in a historic Rolls-Royce or Daimler bedecked with ribbons. If we do not exempt historic vehicles from LEZs, people will not be able to turn up for their weddings in churches, hotels or other wedding venues in the city centre in such style. That would be to the detriment of society as a whole, and not what was intended from the legislation.
It goes without saying that the great majority of historic vehicles will not meet modern emissions standards, and it will therefore be the case that there will be higher pollution from a historic vehicle in an LEZ than from a more modern vehicle. However, we have to put that in perspective. Historic vehicles are seldom in regular use and tend to do very low mileage—commonly, no more than a few hundred miles per year. In total, historic vehicles represent 0.2 per cent of total traffic on UK roads. I do not think that there is a credible argument that a substantial pollution problem is likely to arise as a result of exempting historic vehicles, given how little they contribute to overall traffic.
Amendment 30 seeks to exclude all historic vehicles that were registered more than 30 years ago, on a rolling basis. The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 describes historic vehicles as those that are at least 40 years old, on a rolling basis. The DVLA uses that definition and currently all vehicles that are more than 40 years old are exempt from road tax and annual MOT. However, the international definition of historic vehicles applies to those that were built more than 30 years ago. That definition is recognised by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and by the Fédération International des Véhicules Anciens—FIVA, which is the international umbrella organisation for historic vehicle owners. I believe that, in line with international practice, the 30-year cut-off point is the appropriate one.
There is precedent for my proposal. The LEZs in England—the new London LEZ and the others that are being set up pursuant to the “Clean Air Strategy 2019”, by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—all exempt historic vehicles. Therefore it would be appropriate for historic vehicles to be exempted from the LEZs that are to be established in Scotland.
I hope that my comments were helpful. I am happy to respond to members’ comments.
Michael Matheson
We heard a lot of views on proposed LEZ exemptions during stage 1, and there have been some interesting additional proposals made by members this morning. I will be clear. I accept that there will be vehicle-based exemptions in relation to LEZs. There are a range of circumstances in which it would be right and proper that an LEZ exemption for certain vehicles, used for certain purposes, would be justified.
During Government evidence at stage 1, it was made clear that emergency services and blue badge holders were high on our consideration list. Some interesting proposals have been made today in relation to fairly niche areas. For example, amendments 2, 3 and 3A relate to transportation equipment for funfairs, amendments 30 and 31 are concerned with historic vehicles and amendment 221 relates to community bus services. Amendment 33 covers blue-light services—first responders—and amendment 34 concerns diplomatic vehicles.
It is evident from that wide variety of interests that this all needs careful thought and consideration, in conjunction with interested parties who have specialist knowledge in those areas. It would not be in our collective interest arbitrarily to extend exemptions in some areas to quite nuanced groups of vehicles, at stage 2. My officials are currently undertaking extensive engagement on proposed regulations on LEZ exemptions. We do not want to pre-empt that process.
Richard Lyle
This provision might answer every call for an exemption, including mine. Under the heading, “Time-limited exemptions”, section 12 of the bill says:
“A low emission zone scheme may provide for the granting and renewal, by the local authority which made the scheme, of a time-limited exemption in respect of a vehicle or type of vehicle for the purpose of section 1(1)(b).”
If a local council were approached by a historic vehicles association, community transport body, or the Showmen’s Guild, in respect of a particular function—such as a fair, funfair or show of historic vehicles going down Princes Street—could it grant an exemption in respect of any LEZ for a particular time, day, or period?
Michael Matheson
There is provision in the bill to allow a local authority to suspend the provisions of an LEZ for a particular event to take place. If there was to be a parade of historic military vehicles, for example, the local authority could suspend the LEZ to allow that to happen. There is provision in the bill to allow a council to do that.
As I mentioned, my officials have been undertaking extensive work with interested parties. A stakeholder workshop on the topic of regulations was hosted by Transport Scotland last month, and it included the issue of exemptions. A detailed report of findings from the workshop will be published shortly. That approach is helping us to gather a full picture from key interest groups and to test opinion properly in a considered forum. I am happy to update Parliament on how that develops as we move towards stage 3, but we need to give that process some space and to avoid addressing the issue of exemptions in a piecemeal fashion.
10:15Amendments 56 and 57, which do not relate to vehicle type, have been lodged by the Government to address issues that were raised with us during stage 1. It seems not to be appropriate that, in the event of an unavoidable road closure that might divert traffic into an LEZ, a registered keeper of a non-compliant vehicle would receive a penalty when they had no alternative but to enter the LEZ. Amendment 56 will allow local authorities to create time-limited exemptions for such scenarios. However, the amendment has been drafted to ensure that the exemption would apply only if the driver entered the LEZ “following a signed diversion”.
The four cities LEZ consistency group is comprised of representatives from Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow. It told my officials that it would not be desirable for the appeals process to be used in such scenarios, and that its primary function should be reviews or appeals in connection with alleged erroneous issuing of penalty charge notices. We have, therefore, acted on the matter. Amendment 57 is consequential on amendment 56 and will allow local authorities to make time-limited exemptions for road closures, subject to conditions or restrictions.
Amendment 203 also concerns time-limited exemptions. It aims to remove the one-year time limit for exemptions other than those for road closures, thereby leaving them open-ended. I think that a time limit is appropriate, to make it clear that such exemptions should not carry on indefinitely and to encourage people, particularly fleet operators that receive a time-limited exemption, to prepare for LEZ compliance in the shortest time possible.
Jamie Greene
I am finding the discussion to be extremely helpful and useful. However, in relation to permanent exemptions, amendment 203 and time-limited exemptions, Mr Lyle made the point that the legislation already allows exemptions to be made to cover specific events, either under a time-limited exemption or a temporary suspension. The point of Mr Fraser’s, Rachael Hamilton’s and my amendments, and some of Mr Lyle’s, is to give permanent rather than time-limited exemptions to vehicle categories, either by removal of the cap on the time-limited exemption or by including permanent exemption in the bill. In section 47, on parking prohibitions, the Government has specified types of vehicles. It seems to be happy to do that in that section but unhappy about doing it in section 12, so I am a bit confused. Can you clarify the matter for me?
Michael Matheson
I can see where your confusion arises. It is because the exemptions will be dealt with by regulation. The work that we are currently undertaking will, rather than doing it in a piecemeal fashion by introducing elements to the bill, bring together all the issues relating to exemptions so that they are based in regulations that will be subject to affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have to approve them.
Local authorities will be able to suspend LEZ provisions for the purposes of major events that involve bringing in vehicles that would not comply with the LEZ. That gives local authorities some flexibility. However, we believe that there should be a limit on the length of time for which the local authority can suspend the LEZ, in order to ensure that it is not suspended indefinitely. That is to address the issue that I mentioned in my comments. I hope that that has clarified the matter for Jamie Greene.
I ask the committee to support amendments 56 and 57, and I ask Richard Lyle, Murdo Fraser, Jamie Greene and Rachael Hamilton not to press their amendments. If they are pressed, I urge the committee to reject them.
The Convener
A number of committee members wish to speak. I remind them that it is helpful if they are succinct and to the point, which will mean that I will not have to limit the amount of time that they have to speak. I will try that gentle approach first.
Stewart Stevenson
On Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 221, I absolutely share with her the desire to support community bus services in the best possible way. Indeed, on 15 March 2006, I had a members’ business debate on the subject, and it is worth repeating some of the statistics that I used then relating to Aberdeenshire, where 44 per cent of passengers have to wait more than 64 minutes for the bus while another 15 per cent have to walk more than 14 minutes to a bus stop. Community bus services are an important part of the rural transport infrastructure. However, I want to be clear that people who use community bus services are as entitled as anyone else is to use modern, efficient and comfortable transport. Community bus services, which on occasion travel significant distances to events in cities and so forth, should not expose people to the pollutants that come from rather old vehicles. I just leave that sticking to the wall while making the general point.
On Jamie Greene’s amendment 33, there is an omission from the list that he proposes. I imagine that, if we are to have such a list, we might include military vehicles, because that will be necessary on occasions, albeit I suspect that military vehicles are covered by Crown immunity and would not necessarily require to be—
Jamie Greene
Will the member take a brief intervention?
Stewart Stevenson
I will in a minute. No, sorry, I will take it now.
Jamie Greene
It is on that specific point. I appreciate the point about the omission of military vehicles, although those are mentioned in part 4, which I referred to. Does the member agree that he has the ability to add a suitable vehicle type at stage 3 if he deems it to be omitted from amendment 33? As I said, the wording in the amendment is used in another part of the bill. Does he agree that, if we put that wording in the bill now, members will have the opportunity to amend it or add to it as they see fit?
Stewart Stevenson
I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about dealing with exemptions through regulations, which I think is a much more flexible way of dealing with lists in general in legislation, so I am pretty much persuaded by that.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 34 would exempt diplomatic vehicles. It may be worth saying that, under the diplomatic code, which I have read on the United States Government website, diplomatic vehicles may be issued with traffic citations. In other words, they are not exempt from the law. In addition, the diplomatic code makes it clear that the state can intervene for reasons of public safety, and there is hardly a more omnipresent and regular threat to public safety than pollutants. Therefore, it would be entirely inappropriate to embed in primary legislation a specific exemption for diplomatic vehicles, which we expect to set an example to everyone in our community and to perform to the highest standards. Therefore, I would not support amendment 34 under any circumstances.
I welcome Mr Fraser’s explanation of the proposed period of 30 years. I was aware of the 40-year period. Of course, a period of 40 years would not affect Mr Fraser personally because, as the last Triumph Stag was manufactured in 1977—some websites say that it was 1978—they are all more than 40 years old. However, I do not think that it is proper to have the figure of 30 years in the bill, and nor would any number be proper because, if we are to make an exemption, we should link it to something else. Were we to support such an amendment, I would prefer it to be linked to the exemption from vehicle excise duty so that, when and if that changes, that would carry with it changes in relation to low-emission zones. However, that is a drafting issue rather than anything else.
Like others, I have been contacted by the Bon Accord Steam Engine Club of Aberdeen—
The Convener
Mr Stevenson, I absolutely understand that you have a lot to get through, but I have a lot of members to get through, so I would be grateful if you could be succinct on each point.
Stewart Stevenson
Well—
The Convener
You have had five minutes.
Stewart Stevenson
I have spoken on four amendments so far, convener.
The Convener
No, you have had five minutes on this group, Mr Stevenson. I will let you continue, but I ask you to be brief.
Stewart Stevenson
The point is well made on steam engines. Murdo Fraser made a point, which perhaps I have not heard the answer to, about people who own an historic vehicle and live in a low-emission zone. That is something to be dealt with, although the rest of what Mr Fraser said can sensibly be dealt with elsewhere.
Colin Smyth
For the purposes of simplicity and the effectiveness of LEZs, and as a point of principle, I think that exemptions should be kept to a minimum. I am uncomfortable with the idea of the bill permanently exempting any vehicle. The legislation is expected to be in place for the foreseeable future, and most of—although, I appreciate, not all—the vehicles that are being suggested for exemption are capable of being LEZ compliant eventually, even if they face challenges in the short term.
I accept that the proposed exemptions have merit, but ministers already have the power to regulate exempt vehicles. In many ways, I think that secondary legislation may be the more appropriate place to put those exemptions, so that they can be revoked if they become unnecessary, not least because we should support people and organisations to upgrade their vehicles, rather than exempting those vehicles.
Amendments 30 and 31 relate to classic vehicles, which I appreciate present a unique challenge, because replacing or upgrading such vehicles is not an option in the same way that it might be in other instances. As the cabinet secretary said, I wonder whether the way forward is to have targeted exemption provisions in regulations, for example to allow classic vehicles to be driven for a specific purpose—such as at a classic car show—or for classic vehicles owned by residents in an LEZ. I make the general point that regulations are the best way forward for such exemptions, and we should not be putting them on the face of the bill.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
The cabinet secretary’s comments have been helpful and have certainly clarified things a bit for me. However, I feel that there are too many issues here. One issue is whether there should be exemptions for some vehicles all the time—which I think is what Murdo Fraser is arguing for—and another is time-limited exemptions, which are covered by section 12.
I have a specific interest, because there is a bus museum in my constituency. Representatives of the bus museum would consider that a bus becomes a vintage bus after 20 years, so they would argue with the 30-year line that has been taken by Murdo Fraser. I am happy to accept that it would not be 20 years for every vehicle, but it would be 20 years for some. Like Colin Smyth, I feel that we do not want all those details on the face of the bill, although we may need some reference in the bill to the exemption. Section 12 is very specific about time-limited exemptions, but I do not think that there are equivalent provisions for exempting certain categories of vehicle, albeit that those would be better placed in regulations.
We need to remember that low-emission zones are intended to be quite tight, small areas. Murdo Fraser made an argument about a vehicle having to travel through Glasgow, but it would not have to go through the LEZ in order to do so. In addition, the likelihood that someone who lives in the small LEZ in Glasgow also has a vintage vehicle is pretty small, although it is not impossible.
Murdo Fraser
Will Mr Mason reflect on the point that I made about wedding cars? Does he not think that it would be unfortunate for someone who wants to get married in a city centre church in Glasgow to have to rock up in a modern car as opposed to a vintage Rolls Royce?
John Mason
That question relates to my final point, which is about how cumbersome the council system of time-limited exemptions would be. If it was quite straightforward, it could easily cover Mr Fraser’s example as well as my example of a bus going into the city centre to pick up passengers to take to the museum, which might happen about 15 times a year at the most. Often, those buses are run by volunteers or small businesses, so I would hope that any system that the councils put in place would be fairly simple.
10:30Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
We have a climate emergency; I am surprised that that has not been flagged up already. That is partly why we are looking at LEZs, so I am not in favour of general exemptions.
I will come to Murdo Fraser’s amendments in a minute but the whole point of an LEZ is about moving to low-emission vehicles. When vehicles are exempted, that causes a problem.
On the Government’s amendments 56 and 57, if someone has no intention of going into the LEZ area but is forced into it, it seems eminently sensible that they should not be considered to be breaking the law. Unlike in London, where there is a charge, we have decided in Scotland to go down the route that this is the law. I therefore think that amendments 56 and 57 are very sensible.
Unlike Colin Smyth, I am not a fan of Government regulations. It is our job as MSPs, when we are looking at primary legislation, to get it right. I am well aware that, under section 1(4)(b),
“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations ... specify vehicles or types of vehicle which are exempt”,
so they will have that power. The problem with regulations is that we cannot amend them. However, we can amend proposed primary legislation—as in the bill before us—so I understand why Murdo Fraser lodged his amendments on classic cars. I hold my hand up—I used to have a classic car. I do not anymore so I do not have a pecuniary interest in that regard. However, I understand that a classic car cannot be changed to meet the LEZ requirements, so there is an issue there.
I am worried about the issue of process, which I would like to have addressed at stage 1—we did not do so because it was not brought to our attention at stage 1. I think that we have missed a trick in not examining that in detail. We are being asked to vote on Murdo Fraser’s amendments having not taken evidence or examined the situation. There is a case to be made for adding the exemption at stage 3, and I urge Murdo Fraser to have discussions with the cabinet secretary on the issue of classic cars.
I would hope that, apart from the Government’s amendments 56 and 57, members do not press the other amendments in the group so that we can have a look at the issues in more detail at stage 3. I will certainly support amendments 56 and 57. I will not support the other amendments in the group. I am reserving my position on classic cars because I think that we need to examine the issue further.
Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)
I will be brief. I am also a collector and owner of classic cars. I therefore support Murdo Fraser’s amendments 30 and 31 to create an LEZ exemption for classic cars. Since he has made the case very well, I add only that classic car rallies are great cultural events and it is important that we do not ban them from our towns and cities. We must remember that classic cars have very small annual mileages.
I also support the amendments from my colleagues Rachael Hamilton and Jamie Greene.
Rachael Hamilton
Although I accept the cabinet secretary’s wish to deal with the exemptions through regulations, I do not accept his comment that community transport is a “niche” area. Community bus operators are not well placed to embrace technology and they offer an integral service to vulnerable individuals in local communities and those living in social isolation.
There will be an opportunity for members to add to my amendment at stage 3.
I press amendment 221.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 221 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 221 disagreed to.
Amendments 33 and 34 not moved.
Amendment 2 moved—[Richard Lyle].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con))
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 1. I have the casting vote and, as I always do, I cast my vote in the way that I did originally.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
The Convener
I call amendment 30.
Murdo Fraser
Convener, may I respond briefly to what we have heard?
The Convener
I ask you just to move or not move the amendment.
Murdo Fraser
Okay. Given what the minister said about further consideration, and his very reasonable point in that regard, I am happy not to move amendment 30 and to reserve the right to lodge a similar amendment at stage 3.
Amendments 30 and 31 not moved.
The Convener
The next group is on low-emission zones: penalty charges payable. Amendment 185, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 186 to 188, 199, 200 and 202.
If amendment 186 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 187 and 188.
John Finnie
Amendment 185 relates to a provision that is right at the front of the bill, in part 1, chapter 1, section 1. Section 1(3) provides that
“only one penalty charge is payable in respect of the contraventions.”
Amendment 185 would amend that to “up to three” penalty charges per day.
Members will be aware that, in the United Kingdom, 40,000 deaths each year are directly attributable to poor air quality. The British Lung Foundation has shared widely with members its briefings, in which it expresses concern about multiple contraventions. I think that members understand the point. I am keen to hear what the Scottish Government has to say about that. I anticipate that the cabinet secretary might talk about the potential for secondary legislation to cover the matter.
I will not support Jamie Greene’s amendments 186 and 187, but I am keen to hear what Peter Chapman has to say about the data on vehicles, and I will decide thereafter about his amendment.
I move amendment 185.
Jamie Greene
In this group, there are two sets of amendments in my name, one of which pre-empts the other. If I talk about the first one, it might help members to understand my approach.
I should put on record my huge thanks to the legislation team, which has been extremely helpful throughout. Navigating the bill process is difficult for members and their staff. Having spoken to the team, I have taken two different approaches in amendment 186 and amendments 187 and 188.
Section 1(4)(c) provides that the Scottish ministers may, by regulations
“make provision for or in connection with the amount that may be imposed as a penalty charge under subsection (2) (which may include provision for discounts and surcharges).”
Amendment 186 would simply remove subsection 4(c) in its entirety. It is my view that ministers should not dictate the amount of the penalty charge but that it would be best to give local authorities that power. That is the approach that amendment 186 takes.
However, amendments 187 and 188 take a different approach, which I will be keen to hear members’ thoughts on. Amendment 187 would give ministers the power to set a “maximum” penalty charge but does not specify a range or a minimum. It seems sensible for the Government to specify the top end of what a charge could be, to ensure that there is consistency and fairness across Scotland regardless of where we live. However, in my view, local authorities should determine the penalty that best meets the needs of their city and their zone.
Amendment 188 would remove the ministers’ ability to determine discounts and surcharge levels, in line with my theory that the level of fines, discounts and surcharges should be down to the local authority that is running the scheme and not down to central Government. What is right for Dundee to charge might not be right for Edinburgh. Nevertheless, I would like a national cap on the amount that can be charged, to ensure that any individual local authority is not able to introduce overly exorbitant fines that could reach hundreds of pounds per day.
That is the rationale behind those two approaches.
Amendments 199 and 200 are similar. Amendment 200 would reflect the passing of amendment 187, around the maximum charge, so it is technically different from amendment 199. In that respect, I will take a view on which amendment to move. In section 9, which lists what local authorities should detail when setting up a zone, including the geographic area of a zone, which roads it will operate on, the date on which it will come into effect and its objectives, the amendments would insert
“the amount that is to be imposed as a penalty charge”,
although they do not specify what that amount should be. It is correct not to do so but to state that the required content of the scheme should specify, at the outset, when a local authority comes to the ministers to request a scheme, what the proposed penalty will be. It seems sensible to request that it does that.
I will speak briefly to amendment 202, which is also in this group. As the bill stands, individuals are responsible for meeting the costs of a penalty charge, and amendment 202 would technically allow other methods of payment. For example, it would allow a company or organisation to set up an arrangement whereby it would pay the charge on behalf of its employees. I will give some examples that might be helpful to the committee. A national health service board might choose to enter into an arrangement with the local authority that operates the scheme to meet the costs of individual drivers—for example, doctors and nurses—who travel into a low-emission zone. Similarly, a local authority might use a range of contractors to provide services such as—as is common—outsourced waste collection. Part of the commercial agreement between those parties might be that the cost of non-compliant vehicles entering the zone will be met by the local authority or another body. Amendment 202 would allow that to happen, whereas, at the moment, the bill puts the onus on the driver.
John Finnie
That is an interesting principle. Has Mr Greene reflected on whether that could apply to other provisions in the bill? For example, will he lodge an amendment of that nature in respect of the workplace parking levy?
Jamie Greene
When we get to that part of the bill, I will be happy to have that debate with Mr Finnie. However, at the moment, I am talking about low-emission zones.
That is a sensible and helpful suggestion that would allow organisations to enter into an agreement with the local authority that operated a zone. Similar measures have been introduced in congestion zones, with companies meeting the costs by setting up direct debits or other, more simple forms of payment. The amendment would not mandate local authorities to set up bulk payment schemes in any way, shape or form, but it would give them the power to do so if they so chose. I would be keen to hear the minister’s thoughts on the proposal.
10:45Mike Rumbles
I think that John Finnie’s amendment 185 is too harsh. People can enter a zone inadvertently. If they enter it once and are charged for the day, that should be sufficient. I am not convinced that the proposal to impose up to three penalty charges a day will have any effect in terms of changing behaviour, which is what we are talking about. The minister’s position—
John Finnie
Does the member think that it is likely that someone would inadvertently enter a zone three times in one day?
Mike Rumbles
I can speak only from personal experience, and, on the basis of my experience, I would say yes. I hold my hands up: I have inadvertently entered such a zone when I have been driving abroad, and I would not have done so if I had known about it. Drivers can make mistakes inadvertently, and we have to be aware of that when we legislate. I hope that that answer’s John Finnie’s question.
Jamie Greene
Will Mr Rumbles take an intervention?
Mike Rumbles
Not if it is about the incident that I mentioned.
Jamie Greene
I simply want to state that I have lodged an amendment that is designed to ensure that there is clear signage at the start of the zones, so that drivers such as Mr Rumbles will be acutely aware that they are entering them.
Mike Rumbles
I thank Jamie Greene for that helpful intervention.
The point of what we are doing is to change behaviour, and I do not think that charging someone up to three times a day for the same offence will be of any help in that regard.
I also think that Jamie Greene’s amendment 202 misses the point of what we are doing. The money that is paid is not a charge in that sense; it is a penalty. The Government’s approach is about changing behaviour; the idea is not that someone can just pay some more money and continue doing what they are doing.
Unless the minister convinces me otherwise, I am likely to vote against all the amendments, if they are pressed.
Richard Lyle
I agree with Mike Rumbles. When I worked in Glasgow, the council changed the status of roads a number of times and, inadvertently, I went into places that I should not have gone into and had to pay the cost of that. With the greatest respect to Jamie Greene, I would point out that, if you are looking at the road and driving correctly, you can sometimes miss a sign—that can happen. Therefore, I agree with Mike Rumbles that one charge is enough.
The Convener
If no other members wish to seek forgiveness for previous crimes, I will bring in the cabinet secretary.
Michael Matheson
This group of amendments addresses the penalty charge that is payable when the registered keeper of a vehicle is in contravention of a low-emission zone.
Amendment 185 would increase from one to three the number of times in one day that an individual could be charged for driving in a low-emission zone in a non-compliant vehicle. It appears that the intention behind the amendment is to further incentivise individuals not to be in contravention of an LEZ. It is right that there must be sufficiently stringent penalties to encourage behaviour change, but a balance must be struck by having an incentive that is practical and technically deliverable. Issuing multiple penalties in one day in the same LEZ to the same registered keeper would require the LEZ operator to prove that a vehicle had left the LEZ and then re-entered it later on the same day. Having consulted stakeholders, the Government has opted to set the bar at a maximum of one penalty charge a day.
Amendments 186 and 119 would have the effect that local authorities would decide the penalty charge amount for their low-emission zone schemes and remove the Scottish ministers’ power to set nationally consistent penalty amounts in regulations. Amendments 187, 188 and 200, by contrast, would have the effect of retaining the Scottish ministers’ ability to set the penalty charge but would provide that the ministers would set only the maximum charge—they would have no power to set discounts or surcharges. Local authorities would have the power to specify the penalty charge, including any discounts and surcharges, but subject to the maximum charge that was set by the ministers.
Neither of those options is advisable, as it is important that there is consistency in the penalty rates and surcharges that are set across all LEZ schemes. Consistency is arguably one of the red-line issues that stakeholders have identified. For that reason, I suggest that it is sensible to set a standard amount that correlates to current civic penalty amounts and for the Government to be able to set consistent surcharge rates to ensure that individuals across Scotland have certainty and consistency in understanding how they will be penalised for contravention.
Jamie Greene
Is the cabinet secretary confirming that the Government will set any penalty charges, discounts and surcharges for any low-emission zone that is set up in Scotland and that local authorities will not be able to amend, review, lower or increase those amounts? In other words, will the Government, not the local authorities that operate the schemes, set the charges?
Michael Matheson
A penalty charge will be set nationally in the same way as penalty charges are set for road traffic offences, which will ensure a consistent approach. If someone in Aberdeen faces a penalty charge, it will be the same as the penalty they would face in Glasgow for contravention. The key issue that stakeholders have raised with us is the need for a consistent approach, which is why we are taking an approach that allows ministers to set the penalty at a national level.
Amendment 202 would allow local authorities to make arrangements with employers to exclude drivers from being charged a penalty for driving a non-compliant vehicle into an LEZ in the course of their employment. The Government agrees with the principle, but the amendment is unnecessary, because the bill already allows for that. Section 2(4)(a) prescribes that the penalty charge for entering an LEZ in a non-compliant vehicle is payable by
“the registered keeper of the vehicle”.
If an individual enters an LEZ in a non-compliant vehicle in the course of their employment, the registered owner is likely to be the employer, which means that the employer and not the employee is liable to pay the charge. If an employee enters an LEZ in a non-compliant vehicle that is registered to them in the course of their employment, they may also be exempt from paying the charge by virtue of the regulation-making power in section 2(4)(b).
Therefore, I cannot support amendments 185 to 188, 199, 200 and 202. I ask John Finnie not to press amendment 185 and Jamie Greene not to move amendments 186 to 188, 199, 200 and 202. If they are moved, I urge the committee to reject them.
John Finnie
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his comments. I appreciate that he has a considerable number of amendments to comment on and that the briefness of his comments on my amendments was in no way intended to make him appear dismissive of the British Lung Foundation’s concerns about the issue. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary would agree to my meeting him or his officials specifically to address the concern about multiple contraventions that the British Lung Foundation has raised. If he would, I would be inclined not to press amendment 185.
Michael Matheson
I am happy to agree to that engagement with the member.
Amendment 185, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
The next group is on low-emission zones: identification of whether vehicle meets specified emission standard. Amendment 28, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 222, 41, 42 and 29.
Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)
This is a mercifully small group. I have a couple of amendments in it, but the main one is amendment 28—amendment 29 is a consequence of 28.
Amendment 28 is straightforward, so I do not need to talk about it for very long. As members are putting their car ownership on the table, I point out that I currently own a 13-year-old diesel car. I do not intend to hang on to it for too much longer. When I saw the bill, it struck me that if I, or anyone who owns a similar vehicle, had work done to the vehicle or had it modified so that it could comply with the restrictions in one of the zones, I would want that to be picked up quickly. If I had work done one day and drove into a zone the next week, I would not want to be fined. The purpose of the amendment is simple. We need a system, whatever it is—I have said that that should be set up through regulation—to pick up that kind of situation. We need a system that recognises, for any low-emission zone in Scotland, that people have had work done on their vehicle and therefore comply with the zone’s emissions standard.
Amendment 222 from Peter Chapman and amendment 41 from the cabinet secretary are pretty similar and in the same vein. I think that they are complementary, but I remain to be persuaded on that. Mr Chapman or the cabinet secretary might persuade me that I do not need to press my amendments because their amendments achieve the same thing.
I move amendment 28.
Peter Chapman
I echo the sentiments of my colleague Graham Simpson and I will support his amendments 28 and 29. The onus must be on the Scottish Government, rather than motorists or manufacturers, to identify which cars meet the required LEZ standards, which is basically what Mr Simpson said. My amendment 222 would go a bit further than that principle by ensuring that there is a national data set to identify which vehicles can and cannot enter LEZs. Just as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency holds data sets so that motorists can view different classifications of vehicles, there should be a data set to enable every motorist to check whether their vehicle meets requirements. That would be extremely beneficial in preventing confusion and penalties to drivers who simply do not know which category their vehicle is in.
Most cars will be simple to categorise, but there must also be a method to identify cars that have been modified to meet the LEZ requirements. I suggest that we have a data set for precisely that.
I support the cabinet secretary’s amendments 41 and 42, which are technical and strengthen the bill in relation to the certification of vehicles meeting LEZ standards.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 28 and 29 in essence duplicate powers that are already outlined in the bill, which has provision for regulations identifying whether vehicles meet emission standards. Therefore, the amendments do not seem to offer anything additional and appear unnecessary.
Amendment 222 would require the Scottish ministers, when making regulations under section 1(4)(b), to include provision about a national data set that could be used to identify vehicle exemptions. The outcomes sought by amendment 222 are sensible, but the bill already makes provision for such actions to be delivered by allowing the possibility for local authorities to contract out part of their function to LEZ operators.
Graham Simpson
Could the cabinet secretary point to the section of the bill that he referred to that covers the measures that are in my amendments?
11:00Michael Matheson
I have referred to the data sets in relation to regulations under section 1(4)(b). Mr Simpson referred to cars going through a retrofit process. If that happens, it needs to be notified to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.
That information will be used by those who are operating the LEZs to confirm whether cars comply with it or not. The data sets that are used by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the DVSA will be used by those who are operating the LEZs, which covers the point that the member was seeking to cover through his amendment.
For LEZs to work properly in Scotland, the LEZ enforcement regime will utilise data sets to identify exempt vehicles in order to deliver the purpose outlined in section 1(1)(b). The data sets on exempt vehicles will be regularly updated, adapted and supplemented by other data sets or systems, as applicable, to permit the identification of exempt vehicles.
Amendments 41 and 42 help to address issues that have come to the fore since the bill’s introduction. They will help to future proof the legislation on LEZs to allow for where vehicle record data sets may change or where new ones emerge and are used in a detection and enforcement scheme. They will also help to ensure that the detection scheme used in Scotland is flexible—in particular, to take account of vehicle retrofitting, which means that it is important to enforce against emissions at the date and time of detection rather than the emission performance when the vehicle was originally manufactured. That addresses the point that Mr Simpson was seeking to address through his amendment.
Amendment 41 is principally aimed at addressing gaps in records where no information is or will be held by the DVLA or the DVSA on the emissions standard of a particular vehicle. This equates to records of future vehicle emission standards for vehicles that are different from or more stringent than the current EU standard, and records of the emission standards for foreign vehicles. In relation to the application of so-called “real-world” emission standards, a record of a vehicle’s emission standard at the time of the contravention of the LEZ could help to show whether its emission standard had degraded since it was registered.
Amendment 42 ensures that if a vehicle has been retrofitted and its emission standard has changed from its standard at the time of registration, the detection procedure will be flexible enough to take account of that. In such an instance, the vehicle’s registered keeper will have to ensure that it is designated in such a way with the DVSA.
We understand that the agency intends to accept certificates currently produced by the clean vehicle retrofit accreditation scheme, which is run by the Energy Saving Trust. Amendment 42 allows for such back-office functions and for the emissions at the date and time of detection to be those that are pursued.
I ask the committee to support amendments 41 and 42 in my name. I ask Peter Chapman not to move amendment 222 and Graham Simpson not to press amendment 28 or move amendment 29. If they are pressed, I ask the committee to reject them.
Stewart Stevenson
Amendment 28 is not constructed to achieve what is required of it, because it uses the word “manufactured”. The definition of “manufacture” is to make something on a large scale using machinery. The amendment therefore excludes home-built vehicles—the vehicles that, traditionally, had a year letter of Q, which meant that the year was indeterminate because often they were built from parts of many different vehicles. On technical grounds, amendment 28 is not well constructed.
Similarly, for Peter Chapman’s amendment 222, I am a bit uncertain about subsection (b), which speaks about
“the national dataset or other system”.
I am not sure what that “other system” means and whether it could end up meaning private data sets. I would encourage the Government to seek to have the information recorded by the DVSA, if that is possible, because the DVSA already records the emissions that come from vehicles. That information then determines the annual tax that is set by the DVLA. In the case of my little hybrid car, I pay £10 a year. I know that colleagues with large Land Rovers pay considerably more, because the database says that their emissions are greater. Hopefully, we would piggyback on that, rather than set up something that is disjointed and independent.
Jamie Greene
Every day is a learning day when you sit next to Stewart Stevenson.
The chain of conversations is interesting. Mr Simpson and Mr Chapman are trying to make the point that the bill talks in great detail about “approved devices” and how the information would be captured, presumably through number plate recognition. However, we have not spent any time really discussing what is at the back end of all that and what the devices are connected to.
The discussion is raising the need to seek clarity on whether local authorities would hold the data sets or back-end data that the approved device is linked to in order to allow it to do the immediate check on whether a vehicle that has been captured on entering a zone is compliant with entry; whether that data set would be held and provided nationally or set to some national standard; whether it could be amended, either by adding layers of other data sets, such as exemption layers; and, as Mr Simpson was alluding to, whether it would capture changes and modifications to vehicles to make them compliant. Our problem is that amendments 41 and 42, although helpful, do not really clarify whether there will be any standardised back-end data and whether all local authorities will use the same data source or will have to produce it themselves.
Mr Simpson’s and Mr Chapman’s amendments are trying to elicit that clarity from the Government. If they are not agreed to, I hope that the Government might reflect on those points and confirm the position to members before stage 3.
Graham Simpson
I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary and Mr Stevenson said. However, taking on board the cabinet secretary’s opinion of the bill—and it is his opinion—and having read the relevant section of the bill, I am not sure that it captures what I am trying to achieve in amendment 28, which is, very simply, that if you have your car modified so that it can go into one of the zones, a system that responds quickly to that change is needed so that people are not wrongly fined.
The cabinet secretary is looking puzzled by that. I do not know why, because it is quite simple. If I take my car into a garage and get some work done to it so that it will meet the regulations, I do not want to be hit with a fine the very next week.
John Mason
Does the member accept that the DVLA updates its records relatively quickly?
Graham Simpson
I accept that, but, as a driver, I want the certainty that there is a system that goes from the garage to the DVLA to the council. Mr Stevenson can wave his phone about as much as he likes, but this—
Michael Matheson
Does Mr Simpson—
The Convener
Hold on, please. Two seconds, cabinet secretary. In situations like this, when everyone wants to respond to Mr Simpson’s comment, and three of you are doing it at the same time, if you ask the member and then look to me, I will call you in. However, it is up to Mr Simpson to say whether he wants to give way. Mr Simpson, do you want to give way to the cabinet secretary?
Graham Simpson
I do not want to give way, because I am not going to press the amendment. Bearing in mind that the cabinet secretary thought his bill was in good condition, I think that his amendments cover what I am trying to achieve, so I will not press amendment 28.
Amendment 28, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 186 to 188 and 222 not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—Proving contraventions and issue of a penalty charge notice
Amendments 41 and 42 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
The Convener
This is the perfect moment to suspend the meeting.
11:11 Meeting suspended.11:20 On resuming—
Section 4—Power to make or modify a low emission zone scheme
The Convener
The next group is on low-emission zones: duty to make scheme when certain air quality reached. Amendment 43, in the name of Colin Smyth, is the only amendment in the group.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 43 would require a local authority with illegal levels of air pollution to introduce a low-emission zone unless it was exempted from having to do so by the minister.
The amendment was drafted to make clear that when air pollution breaches legal levels, local authorities should be required to address the matter. Accountability for illegal air pollution largely lies with the UK Government, but many of the solutions are at a local level. In my view, there should be a clear duty on local authorities to deal with illegal air pollution in their areas.
Of the mechanisms that are currently available to local authorities—or that are expected to be made available, through the bill—the LEZ is widely considered to be the most effective way of reducing air pollution. Amendment 43 therefore takes the correct approach.
However, the proposed requirement to introduce an LEZ is not absolute. I have included the option of a ministerial exemption. For example, if the breach of air pollution limits was clearly an anomaly or the local authority could illustrate another way in which it was dealing with the issue, the Scottish ministers would have the power to waive the requirement.
The introduction of LEZs is an important step forward, but their use should not be optional where air pollution reaches an illegal level and poses a serious threat to health. Amendment 43 clarifies that.
I move amendment 43.
Mike Rumbles
I am puzzled by amendment 43. The bill is an enabling bill, in that it allows local authorities to introduce LEZs; it puts the initiative on local authorities in that regard. Colin Smyth’s amendment provides that, under proposed new section 4(3), if levels of air pollution reach a certain level, local authorities “must” introduce an LEZ, but under proposed new section 4(4), it appears that Scottish Government regulations would, again, allow that provision to be ignored.
I do not understand the purpose of amendment 43. It says, on one hand, that local authorities “must” introduce LEZs and, on the other, that the Scottish Government can say that they do not have to do so. I really do not think that amendment 43 would do what Colin Smyth wants it to do.
John Finnie
Legislating can be challenging. Given all the papers that we have here, scrutiny is certainly challenging. However, scrutinising proposed legislation and making good law is what we are here to do.
A challenge for the public is that a lot of people are blissfully unaware that they live in areas where there are damaging levels of air pollution. It is incumbent on the Government to protect its population—and Colin Smyth is right to say that some matters are reserved to the UK Government.
I am very supportive of the approach in amendment 43. Having assessed the risk and established that there is a danger to the public, it is incumbent on the public sector to put in place measures to reduce the risk, one of which is a low-emission zone. I support amendment 43.
Jamie Greene
Perhaps when he sums up the debate, Colin Smyth will clarify something for me. Amendment 43 refers to air pollution levels exceeding a specified standard. Mr Smyth has chosen to refer to the Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010; elsewhere in the bill there are references to other pieces of legislation, and I lodged amendments that refer to different regulations. The problem is that the approach in amendment 43 is tied to specific regulations, which might change in future through an instrument that would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Is the effect of amendment 43 that if the air quality in an area is deemed to be unfit for people, the local authority in which the measurement is taken must introduce a low-emission zone?
We think of low-emission zones as relating primarily to cities, where the majority of traffic-related pollution and vehicles are, but the provision could apply to any local authority, including any in the region that Colin Smyth represents. In effect, it would force local authorities to set up a zone, perhaps against their will. I appreciate the reasoning behind the automatic trigger that Mr Smyth seeks to introduce, but I am nervous that it might mean that local authorities would have to set up such a zone, even if it was not the right thing for them to do.
Peter Chapman
I echo what Mike Rumbles and Jamie Greene have said. Mike Rumbles made the point that in one place the amendment says that the local authority “must” act, but in another it says that it might not have to. The amendment is very confusing in that respect. I also reflect on what Jamie Greene said: it could force a local authority in any area to introduce an LEZ. LEZs are targeted at the four main cities, but the amendment could open it up to have them in any town anywhere and that would be a step too far.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 43 would introduce a requirement on local authorities to implement an LEZ in an area that does not meet the air pollution limit values as set out in the Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010. Those regulations refer to air quality targets derived from European directives. That is important because LEZs in Scotland are being driven primarily by the need to address air pollution hotspots as defined by the Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000, rather than the European target outlined in the Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010, which is mentioned in amendment 43.
The Scottish Government has already made a commitment to introduce LEZs into air quality management areas identified under current environmental legislation, by 2023, where the national low emission framework appraisals support that approach. Such appraisals of all air quality management areas will be conducted this year, other than for the four main cities, where LEZs are already being prepared. The process will identify whether an LEZ is required for other air quality management areas.
It is important to consider those appraisals carefully and ensure that there is scientific merit in introducing further LEZs as required. Thus, amendment 43, which is a mandatory requirement, is too prescriptive at this stage. The Scottish Government cannot support the further introduction of LEZs until the appraisals have taken place. It is acknowledged that LEZs are a useful tool in improving air quality.
I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 43, but if he does, I ask the committee to reject it.
John Finnie
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
The Convener
The cabinet secretary had just finished. I am sorry John, but I am desperately trying to get through this and allow everyone a chance to speak. You have spoken. I will let you come back in, but that is not something that I will do more generally if someone has spoken already.
John Finnie
Thank you, convener. Can the cabinet secretary give us a timeframe for that assessment process?
Michael Matheson
The appraisal process starts this year and should be completed over the course of the financial year.
Colin Smyth
Members raised two points in particular. Mike Rumbles queried how an amendment could say that a local authority “must” do something but also provide for exemptions. There are quite a few examples of that. The amendment is clear about how such exemptions would work. For example, if a local authority can show that other action is being taken to reduce levels of air pollution—an alternative to LEZs—the authority can be exempt from imposing an LEZ. It is perfectly reasonable and sensible to have an exemption on those lines. The issue is ensuring that action is being taken to tackle illegal air pollution.
The other point that was made by Jamie Greene and Peter Chapman was that the amendment might result in LEZs being introduced in areas other than the ones where we are already aware that there is an issue.
The reality is that, if there are illegal levels of air pollution anywhere, then, frankly, we should be taking action to tackle that problem. We should not simply say that, because we have a list of towns—
Richard Lyle
Will Colin Smyth take an intervention?
Colin Smyth
I am happy to take an intervention.
11:30Richard Lyle
I thank the member. I agree with him. There are other areas—not just in cities, but in towns—where people have concerns. An air pollution monitor sits outside the civic centre in Motherwell, and the air pollution in that area can sometimes be higher than it should be.
I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 43, but to have discussions with the cabinet secretary to see what can be done in order that what he proposes can be supported.
Colin Smyth
I will come to that point in a moment. Richard Lyle makes a valid point. To be clear, there is no safe level of air pollution, but there are areas where there are exceptionally high levels of air pollution and action is required. In those areas, it would not be a question of imposing an LEZ on the local authority if it had set out clearly what action it was taking to tackle those levels of air pollution.
However, I take on board—
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Colin Smyth
I will.
John Finnie
I am grateful to the member—
The Convener
I am sorry, but if members want to make points, I really must ask them to make them during the time when they speak, please. If we continue to get interventions as members are winding up, we will never get to the end of this, so I ask for some discipline. Colin, I ask you to move on, and if you want to take—
John Finnie
Convener, if points emerge, it is appropriate that they are addressed. We are here to scrutinise the bill on behalf of our constituents and our parties and it is important that we make good law. It is important to have a full discussion of issues.
The Convener
Thank you, Mr Finnie. I fully understand the legal process and I also understand the parliamentary process, but thank you for drawing my attention to it.
Mr Smyth, if you would like to take the intervention, will you take it and then move on, please?
Colin Smyth
I am happy to take the intervention.
John Finnie
Does the member accept that one of the measures that could be taken in an area where there are high levels of air pollution is to remove traffic from the area altogether?
Colin Smyth
Absolutely. There are a number of options. My local authority has looked at that option and considered whether there should be vehicles in the vicinity of a school in a town centre. It is not in a city, but there are concerns about air pollution in that area. There are alternative actions that can be taken, and the fact that local authorities will take those actions is the reason why the exemption exists in my amendment.
I take on board the points that the cabinet secretary made on two matters—first, the work that is on-going, and secondly the reference in proposed new section 4(3) in my amendment, the values that are set out in schedule 2 to the Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010 and the fact that the Government is looking at different areas.
On that basis, I will not press my amendment, but I hope that the cabinet secretary will have discussions on whether an amendment could be lodged at stage 3 or whether work can be done in the light of the Government’s work over the summer in order to put in place a situation whereby LEZs, which are regarded as an effective way to tackle air pollution, come into play where we have illegal or very high levels of air pollution.
Amendment 43, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
After section 4
The Convener
The next group is on the procedure on making schemes for low-emission zones. Amendment 223, in the name of Peter Chapman, is grouped with amendments 35, 189, 36, 37, 190, 38, 191, 44, 192 to 195, 45 to 48 and 196 to 198.
Peter Chapman
Amendment 223 would simply require local authorities to prepare and publish an impact assessment for areas where they want to make LEZs. It would require them to consider the environment; equalities, ensuring, for instance, that low-income families are not detrimentally affected by the introduction of the LEZ; the local economy, as we do not want local businesses on struggling high streets to be further affected by the introduction of an LEZ, and that should be taken into account; future policies, plans and proposals; and such other matters as they see fit.
Scotland is diverse, and the local authorities in Glasgow and Aberdeen will not necessarily have the same objectives or considerations. The wording of my amendment would allow each local authority the freedom to assess different areas that they think would be impacted.
On the convener’s instructions, I will be very brief. I support all the amendments by Jamie Greene in this group, but I will let him speak to them.
I move amendment 223.
Jamie Greene
I will not speak to all the amendments in the group—there are 20—but will stick to those in my name, in the interests of time.
I will explain what I am trying to achieve with amendment 35, which is helpfully linked to amendments 36, 37, 191 and 198, which are consequential. The bill stipulates that local authorities require approval from Scottish ministers to do three things: to set up, amend or revoke a zone. Although it seems sensible for the Government to approve the setting up of a zone, or indeed the making of substantial changes to a zone, amendment 35 proposes that local authorities should have the power to revoke a zone at their discretion. For example, if a zone is deemed not to be meeting its objectives or to be having a detrimental impact on its area, a local authority, or multiple authorities, should have the power to revoke the zone unilaterally.
A local authority may choose to revoke a zone for many reasons; that goes back to my earlier point about a low-emission zone having a purpose. Currently, ministers could block that revocation, and I am keen to hear why the cabinet secretary needs or wants that power. The reason could be to meet national or international obligations, which would be a fair point. However, that could be at the expense of a local authority that no longer wishes to operate a zone, and the local authority should have the final say on closing down a scheme, if it chooses to do so. My other amendments in the group, which are consequential on amendment 35, would remove the revocation power from ministers accordingly.
Amendment 189, which is the next substantive amendment, would oblige local authorities, before seeking permission from the Scottish Government to set up a zone, to provide a statement to ministers about what consultation has taken place. That is in line with Mr Chapman’s suggestion that there should be impact assessments and full and robust local consultation before a zone is set up. Knowing the outcome of the consultations and how the findings have been considered in the proposals would assist ministers in reaching a view on whether the zone should be approved.
Similarly, amendment 190 states that Scottish ministers “must take into account” the statement that is provided by the local authority as part of their decision-making process. I hope that members will consider that to be a helpful addition to the setting-up process.
Amendment 38 concerns what would require ministerial approval. It would add wording to section 5 to state that approval would not be required of the elements that specify the geography of the LEZ, or the times and dates of its operation. I have always taken the view that the Government should set the national standards in terms of vehicle standards, exemptions, approved devices and so on, but that local authorities should make local decisions on the practical operation of the zone, which would include the geography of the zone and when it operates. For that reason, amendment 38 seeks to remove those elements from the requirement for approval and the final decision would be made by the local authorities.
Colin Smyth
Amendments 44 to 48 in my name would add to the list of statutory consultees on the establishment of an LEZ to ensure that feedback is more balanced. Given the significant health risk of air pollution—2,000 deaths a year in Scotland are attributed to it—amendment 44 would require health boards and organisations that represent people with health conditions that are caused by air pollution to be consulted when those schemes are developed.
The introduction of LEZs will have an impact on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, so it is right for them to have a guaranteed opportunity to feed in during the consultation process.
Amendments 192 to 197, in the name of John Finnie, which would add to the list of statutory consultees, are all worth while. Amendment 193 has the same aim as my amendment 44. I would be happy not to press my amendment and to support amendment 193, providing that it is pressed, on the ground that it clarifies that the list should include any health board that is only partially in an LEZ. I cannot think of an example in which a health board boundary would make that necessary, but boundaries change, so that clarification is sensible.
Amendment 196 calls for bus users to be consulted, which I very much support. My amendment 47 perhaps covers that, but if there is an argument for name-checking bus users, I am not opposed to amendment 196.
I do not support the other amendments in the group, with the possible exception of Peter Chapman’s amendment 223, which would require local authorities to undertake impact assessments before introducing LEZs. I am concerned that we should not make the process too burdensome—that is important—but, on balance, I expect that most local authorities would need and undertake analysis, so it is worth considering.
John Finnie
I will not repeat a lot of what Colin Smyth said. The bodies that are outlined—community councils, health boards, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland, trade unions, staff associations and the rest—would all add a particular dimension to the discussions that would take place about LEZs and I hope that members will see that those would be appropriate.
It is hard to argue against the rigorous impact assessment that is proposed in Mr Chapman’s amendment 223. I have reservations about paragraph (c), which concerns
“the economy of its area”;
I hope that consideration would also be given to the economic impact of not establishing a low-emission zone, so I am still undecided on that amendment.
Stewart Stevenson
I will speak to John Finnie’s amendment 192, on a very narrow point about the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, to which the amendment refers. Establishing a community council does not imply that there is an operating community council. A scheme that was brought forward by the local authority would cover all the areas. As we know, in much of Scotland, community councils that should be there are not there. In any event, if we look at section 51(2) of the 1973 act, the general duty of community councils is to do that role anyway, so, in legislation, communities are already doing it. There is a bit of ambiguity in requiring that some bodies that do not exist in the real world should be consulted.
Colin Smyth
Will the member take an intervention?
Stewart Stevenson
I do not think that it is worth it, to be honest.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 223, in the name of Peter Chapman, would require local authorities to prepare and publish impact assessments before making, amending or revoking low-emission zone schemes. Local authorities already have legal duties to carry out various environmental and equalities impact assessments for programmes, plans or proposals. In addition, I understand that some local authorities carry out business impact assessments.
Carrying out impact assessments for new policies is an issue that is well understood by local government. As such, amendment 223 is unnecessary and, in how it would cut across existing legislation, potentially confusing; on that basis, I urge the committee to reject it. However, I assure Peter Chapman that material on the suite of impact assessments that are required under existing law would be outlined in the LEZ guidance.
Amendments 35 to 37, 191 and 198, in the name of Jamie Greene, collectively aim to alter ministerial powers on the topic of revoking LEZs such that ministerial powers would extend to an LEZ scheme being made or amended but not to its being revoked.
11:45There is arguably no gain to be had by removing such powers. Indeed, doing so would weaken the scrutiny of LEZs, particularly at the crucial point when a scheme is to be revoked and removed. Moreover, removing ministerial scrutiny powers with regard to the revocation of LEZs would not be in keeping with the approach that is adopted in the local air quality management process, under which local authorities must demonstrate to ministers that an air quality management area can be revoked and that there is scientific merit in doing so. There should be an expectation of similar scrutiny being afforded to the revocation of LEZs.
Amendments 36 and 37 follow amendment 35 in dealing with revocation powers. Under the amendments, Scottish ministers would be able to modify an LEZ scheme proposal or consult stakeholders only where a scheme was made or amended but not where it was revoked. Again, the amendments remove a necessary level of scrutiny and accountability from the process, and I urge the committee not to support them.
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the point about scrutiny and transparency, and there are many other bits of the bill in which the Government has the ability to scrutinise through annual reporting and so on. However, my point is that if a local authority chooses, for whatever reason, to close down a scheme, ministers will have the power to say, “No, you can’t do that.” That is the power that I am trying to remove, and you have not quite justified the need for having it.
Michael Matheson
I have justified it with the very reasons that I have just outlined. Under the local air quality management process, the merit in revoking and removing a scheme has to be quantified and scientifically demonstrated, and we would expect the same to happen with LEZs, given their purpose. In other words, when local authorities seek to revoke such schemes, they have to be able to show that their reasons for choosing to do so have merit.
Amendment 189 seeks to hold local authorities to account by requiring them to demonstrate that the consultation responses have been considered in a meaningful and accountable way, while amendment 190 seeks to direct Scottish ministers to consider the actions undertaken by the local authority under amendment 189 in their decision making with regard to the approval of an LEZ scheme. Given that consultation is already a requirement in the bill, local authorities would consider the outcome of the consultation in the scheme proposal that would be submitted to Scottish ministers. As a result, amendments 189 and 190 are not required. However, in the interests of transparency, I am prepared to support the principle behind the two amendments, but I ask Jamie Greene not to move them today on the basis that my officials will look at them with a view to lodging amendments at stage 3 to achieve the effect that is being sought.
Amendment 38 seeks to remove the requirement for Scottish ministers to give prior approval to parts of the scheme proposal relating to the scheme area and, if the scheme sets out alternatives, to the default position that the LEZ should operate at all times. The amendment should be rejected, as ministers should be expected to approve not just portions of a scheme but the scheme in its entirety. A scheme’s geographical extent and hours of operation are, arguably, two of its most significant and controversial elements, and stakeholders would certainly expect ministers to consider such aspects and to raise queries on them as part of their challenge function before any approval of the scheme as a whole was given.
Amendment 191 would require local authorities to undertake prior consultation with listed stakeholders only for the making or amending of an LEZ scheme, not for its revocation. Again, I do not think that that is advisable, as it would remove a level of accountability from the revocation process. For that reason, I urge the committee to reject the amendment.
A number of amendments that have been proposed on the topic of prior consultation seek to extend the mandatory list of stakeholders to be consulted. I note that regulations under section 6(e) would allow the list to be expanded; I am inclined not to be too prescriptive in the bill, but I am happy to commit to using the section 6 powers to add the persons listed in amendments 44, 45 and 192 to 195.
I am inclined not to support amendments 46, 47, 196 and 197, because I think that they have been framed in too open-ended a way to be legally meaningful for local authorities, but again we would be happy to incorporate similar requirements into section 6 regulations.
I appreciate the sentiment behind Colin Smyth’s amendment 48, given that one of the key drivers behind improving air quality is to improve the health of those who are most affected by air pollution. However, I believe that the scope of the amendment as drafted is simply too wide, meaning that it would be difficult to deliver in a meaningful and practical manner. On that basis, I cannot support it.
Amendment 198 focuses on the issue of a local authority having the power to cause a local inquiry to be held, but the effect would be to allow that to happen only when an LEZ scheme is being made or amended, not when an LEZ scheme is being revoked. Again, I think that that approach would remove an important power of scrutiny from the revocation process and I urge the committee to reject amendment 198 on that basis.
I ask Peter Chapman, Jamie Greene, John Finnie and Colin Smyth not to press their amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed, I urge the committee to reject them.
Peter Chapman
I listened to what the cabinet secretary said, but I think that it is right and proper that the local authorities should prepare and publish an impact assessment. We need an analysis of the effects of putting in place an LEZ. That does not mean that the LEZ will not be put in place, but it is right to have the debate and it may allow other mitigation measures to be put in place. It is right and proper to allow questions to be asked and to allow that debate to be had. It is important that we go down that road before LEZs are put in place. I press amendment 223.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 223 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 223 disagreed to.
Section 5—Ministerial approval
Amendments 35, 189, 36, 37, 190 and 38 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6—Prior consultation
Amendment 191 not moved.
Colin Smyth
I will not move amendment 44, because the wording of John Finnie’s amendment 193 is better.
Amendment 44 not moved.
Amendment 192 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 192 disagreed to.
Amendment 193 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 193 disagreed to.
Amendment 194 not moved.
Amendment 195 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 195 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 195 disagreed to.
Amendment 45 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 45 disagreed to.
Amendment 46 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 46 disagreed to.
Amendment 47 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 47 disagreed to.
Amendment 48 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 48 disagreed to.
Amendment 196 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 196 disagreed to.
Amendment 197 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7—Local inquiries
Amendment 198 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Section 9—Required content of a scheme
Amendment 199 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 199 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 199 disagreed to.
Amendment 200 not moved.
12:00The Convener
Amendment 49, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 224 and 50.
Michael Matheson
This group of amendments concerns the content of LEZ schemes. Amendment 49 will allow local authorities the option of setting the vehicle scope of their LEZ from the outset. That approach is common in European LEZs and is also being used to set up clean air zones in England.
The amendment will mean that each LEZ scheme will be able to identify the vehicle types that are incorporated into the scheme using the scientific information available, rather than making LEZs applicable to all vehicles. The vehicle types will align with those published by the Vehicle Certification Agency, so the approach is quite different from the creation of exemptions, which is likely to focus on specific uses of vehicles.
Amendment 49 will not impact on or limit the overall ambition of an LEZ. Rather, it will enable a proportionate and targeted approach to addressing those vehicles that contribute significantly to air pollution in certain locations.
Amendment 50 works in tandem with amendment 49 to ensure that LEZ schemes can make different provisions for different types of vehicles. That means that LEZ schemes will be able to introduce specific provisions for specific types of vehicles rather than offering a catch-all provision for all vehicles. For example, the design of grace periods would need to adjust accordingly so that they align with certain types of vehicle. Amendment 50 will achieve that.
Richard Lyle
Are you not saying again that councils could exempt classic cars and old buses going to shows? Is this not another provision that the council could use to do that?
Michael Matheson
It will give them some flexibility to do that alongside the national exemption arrangements.
Amendment 224 would make it mandatory for local authorities to include an objective to improve transport-related emissions around schools by 2021. Improving air quality around schools is universally welcome, and the generality of the power to specify a scheme’s objectives in the bill under section 9(1)(c) will already allow such an objective to be set. In fact, I encourage local authorities to consider that aspect when setting their LEZ objectives.
However, I draw attention to a number of issues with amendment 224. First, the 2021 date might not align with the grace period and enforcement timetable that a local authority wishes to assign to an LEZ scheme. For example, the LEZ plans for all vehicles will not come into effect in Glasgow until the end of 2022. That is also true for Edinburgh’s draft plan for its city-wide LEZ.
Secondly, the amendment is too short term and would not be applicable after 2021.
Thirdly, an LEZ will seek to improve air quality across its whole area. Setting an alternative air pollution reduction target for a small locality seems to be unworkable, given that LEZ powers will be standardised across its area.
Finally, actions are already under way in various cities via existing air quality management action plans to reduce transport-related air pollution around schools, such as minimising vehicle idling outside schools. Those plans are being delivered without the need for an LEZ.
For those reasons, I ask the committee to reject amendment 224 and to support amendments 49 and 50 in my name.
I move amendment 49.
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
I lodged amendment 224 because I want to open up the discussion about air pollution and who it affects.
As we all know, the people it hits hardest are the most vulnerable—the oldest, the youngest and those who have mobility or other health problems. The children of Scotland have done nothing to contribute to air pollution, yet, often, the air quality around schools is shockingly low. As they spend at least six hours a day there, we need to do all that we can to ensure that they are breathing in a higher quality of air.
On top of the vulnerability of children, there is also the question of the socioeconomic bias. The lower the income band you are in, the more likely it is that you will live surrounded by poor air quality. It is a no-brainer that breathing in air pollution causes heart and lung conditions, among other conditions, and exacerbates other health conditions. Therefore, we need to do everything we can to improve air quality.
I know from this debate and others that other MSPs have been doing work on how air quality can be monitored—I listened to John Finnie and Colin Smyth talk about this issue earlier, and I believe that Maurice Golden has proposed that air quality monitors should be added to schools. If we can show that children are better protected, that would be a positive way of showing that LEZs are working.
Mike Rumbles
With regard to John Finnie’s intervention a moment ago about the types of vehicles that local authorities can exempt, I note that, when we were debating Murdo Fraser’s amendments, the minister said that the issues did not need to be included in the bill because they could be addressed in ministerial regulations. However, as far as I understand the exchange that just took place, the minister has confirmed that amendments 49 and 50 give local authorities the ability to exempt certain vehicles—for example, cars that are older than 30 years—if they wish. I want to ensure that I understood that correctly, because, if I did, I will support the amendments. I can see that the minister is taking advice from officials on that point.
Under amendment 49, if a council sets up a scheme, it must specify the zone on a map, and it must also specify the roads or parts of roads that are included, the date on which the scheme comes into effect and
“the types of vehicles to which it applies”.
According to my logic, that means that, if we accept the amendment, that empowers councils to exempt the classic cars that Murdo Fraser’s amendments dealt with. Can the minister confirm that that is the case?
Peter Chapman
I support both the cabinet secretary’s amendments in the group. However, following up on the point that Mike Rumbles makes about classic cars, I think that the problem that arises is that the proposal allows different local authorities to have different rules, which means that Aberdeen City Council might allow classic cars into an LEZ while Glasgow City Council might not. Is that the case? Could the cabinet secretary clarify that point and talk about the issue of having a scheme that applies right across the country?
Amendment 224 deals with an objective that we are keen to see met. We support the principle of the amendment entirely, but I have concerns about the time constraint because the date that is specified—2021—would be impossible to meet in practice, as many of the LEZs will not be in place by that date. If the amendment were brought back at stage 3 without the time constraint, I would be more than happy to support it.
Colin Smyth
I have concerns about amendments 49 and 50, which allow local authorities to make exemptions for certain vehicles. A number of stakeholders have highlighted the need for consistency across the country, and so did the committee. In our stage 1 report, which we published just a few weeks ago, we said:
“The Committee believes that to avoid confusion and to encourage compliance there must be consistency across the country as to which vehicles can enter a LEZ and which are exempt.”
Having different exemptions across the country could create confusion for people travelling between local authority areas and will make the message about LEZs more difficult to communicate to the public. Further, the power is an open one, and it could be used to significantly weaken the effectiveness of LEZs if it is not used appropriately.
Amendment 224 would be a welcome addition. There is a specific issue with air pollution outside schools and I think that it is fair to call for schemes to be working towards a clear target in that regard. If the committee agreed to the amendment, there would be an opportunity to amend the timescale at stage 3 if that was the main concern. We could agree to the principle at this point.
Jamie Greene
I will speak first to amendments 49 and 50 from the cabinet secretary. Colin Smyth raises an interesting point that I agree with in many respects, because the stakeholders that we took evidence from over many months made it clear that they wanted consistency. I think that the cabinet secretary probably agrees with that principle of consistency.
This is my worry about allowing an LEZ scheme to specify
“the types of vehicles to which it applies”.
If the purpose of it is to allow a local authority to operate multiple zones, for example, or a zone within a zone—such as may be the case in Edinburgh, where there will be an inner zone and an outer zone—and certain types of vehicles are eligible for entry into one but not the other, it is fine if the amendment technically allows them to do that. However, if an unintended consequence of allowing local authorities to set the vehicle type is that they could create permanent exemptions, as we discussed, it would inevitably lead to inconsistency, where a driver may be eligible to drive into one zone in one city but not a different zone in another city, as other members have alluded to.
I think that the two amendments contradict each other, because I am unclear as to whether the Government wants local authorities to decide which vehicle types can come in or whether the Government wants to dictate a national standard on vehicle types. I thought that the committee was clear that there should be a national standard, at least in relation to the technical standard if nothing else.
That aspect could benefit from some clarification. Overall, it paints a wider picture of confusion over who decides exemptions, whether that is the Government through secondary legislation or local authorities. Even if, according to the process that the bill dictates in section 9, local authorities specify the vehicle type, ministers still have the final power to approve the proposition that is given to them by local authorities. That requires some clarification.
There are two ways to approach amendment 224. If the committee is minded to pass amendment 224 as it is worded, I suggest that we simply remove the words “by 2021” later to make it competent. I would support the amendment at that level. Equally, if the member does not move the amendment, I would be happy for him to bring it back later without those words. I support the rest of it as worded.
Richard Lyle
Can I correct Mike Rumbles? I raised the point about classic cars with the cabinet secretary and he has basically confirmed that a council could have discretion on that point.
Jamie Greene is correct that the committee, throughout its discussions, heard about a desire for consistency. If we say that the penalty charge will be the same in all the areas, the conditions should also be the same in all the areas. That is why I ask the cabinet secretary to look at the points that were raised by Murdo Fraser regarding classic cars and by John Mason regarding classic buses.
On David Stewart’s point, as far as I am concerned, low-emission zones can be anywhere and everywhere that people want them to be. I have two grandchildren—sorry, I have three grandchildren; two of them are going to school and the third is only a year old. Basically, most of us have families or children and we want to ensure that we get better air quality. Other areas can have LEZs, not just cities.
The Convener
Thank you, Richard. I am glad that you did not forget one of your grandchildren. That would have cost you later.
John Finnie
A lot of the discussions that we have had are about a tension between central direction and local discretion. I think that it is healthy that we have those discussions. In relation to amendments 49 and 50, it is important that we note what this committee said in its report.
I dare say that, whatever we agree, we will not make everyone happy. That is not going to change, regardless of the legislation. I would like to lend my support to my colleague David Stewart’s amendment 224. It is an ambitious timeframe—I am sure that David recognises that—but I hope that members will lend their support to it nonetheless, because if we cannot seek to protect children at school, we should not be here, quite frankly.
12:15Michael Matheson
It may be helpful if I outline the purpose behind the particular powers that we are setting out for local authorities here. It is to do with what comes into the scope of the LEZ. Are buses, cars and heavy goods vehicles all included within the scope? If, for example, a local authority is looking to implement an LEZ but the scientific evidence shows that the problem in its town centre is caused not by cars or buses but by HGVs, the local authority can set the scope of its LEZ to apply to HGVs in order to tackle the issue, if that is what is having an impact on the air quality and congestion.
Equally, if a local authority has an area where all the buses are Euro 6 compliant, such as Aberdeen, and it is setting up an LEZ, the local authority has the flexibility not to include buses in the scope because the buses are not the issue that it has to address through the LEZ.
If a local authority decides to include cars within the scope, it means that vintage cars come into scope. You could then deal with that through an exemption for vintage cars. If cars are not included within the scope of the LEZ, vintage cars are not included.
This is about setting the scope of the LEZ—what is covered by it?
Mike Rumbles
Can I ask something?
Michael Matheson
Let me finish this point. Does the scope cover all vehicles of any standard or is it the vehicles that are causing problems with air pollution? The very purpose of setting up the LEZ is to target air pollution. Being able to set the scope gives local authorities the flexibility to decide not to include buses in the scope if buses do not need to be included because they are all compliant and are not causing the pollution. It gives local authorities the option and the ability to do that. If buses are included but, at a later date, they become fully compliant, the local authority can remove them from the scope of the LEZ because including them is no longer necessary.
Colin Smyth
I ask the minister to clarify two things. If buses are already compliant, frankly, they have nothing to fear by being included in the LEZ—they will be able to drive into that area because they are compliant and do not need an exemption. Sadly, buses can change—often, a company will bring in an older bus, which would then be in breach. However, it would be okay for such a bus to enter the LEZ if the local authority had exempted buses, so I am not too sure about the minister’s point on buses.
Can the minister specifically answer the question about exemptions? I think that the committee is concerned about having different rules in different areas. Will the amendment allow a local authority not to give an exemption for a whole group of vehicles—cars or buses—but to give specific exemptions to vintage vehicles?
Michael Matheson
No, it would not. The amendment would allow local authorities to set the scope of an LEZ. For example, as I mentioned, all buses that are being produced now are produced to the Euro 6 standard. In five years, for some areas, buses will no longer be in scope because they will all be compliant with what would be required by any LEZ that was put in place.
Keep in mind what we are trying to address here—we are trying to address issues of pollution. Is it buses, trucks and cars that are causing it? If it is, you would want the scope of your LEZ to cover them. If it is only trucks and cars, why would you have buses in scope? If buses are already compliant, they are not causing the air pollution issue that you are trying to address. This is about giving local authorities that flexibility because, as our local authorities look at implementing LEZs, things will change and the circumstances might be different.
The amendment would not give local authorities the power to give a specific exemption to vintage cars, but if cars were not included within the scope of that LEZ, vintage cars would not be included in the first place.
John Mason
Will the minister—
Michael Matheson
Let me deal with Mike Rumbles next, because he tried to intervene earlier.
I hope that that clarifies the point for Mr Smyth.
Mike Rumbles
If a local authority decided that cars were an issue, they would come into the scope, but it could just be polluting cars that are under 30 years old. The local authority would not have to mention classic cars; it could just say, “We want to include in the scope of this zone all cars up to 30 years old.” There would be no mention of classic cars, but it would have the effect of excluding classic cars from the scope. That is what would happen if this provision were put in the bill.
Michael Matheson
No, it is done by vehicle type; the vehicle type would be car, bus, or HGV. If you include cars, that includes vintage cars.
Mike Rumbles
Are you certain about that?
Michael Matheson
Yes; it is vehicle type. That is to give the ability to set the scope of which vehicles are included in the LEZ. That is different from providing exemptions, which are set at a national level so that the approach is consistent.
John Mason
My question was about the same point—the minister has clarified it.
The Convener
Does that complete your contribution, minister?
Michael Matheson
If it has answered members’ questions.
The Convener
I am not sure that you will ever answer everyone’s questions. The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 10, Against 1, Abstention 0.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Amendment 201 not moved.
David Stewart
I will not move amendment 224, but I reserve the right to bring the matter back at stage 3. I thank colleagues for their positive comments. If the cabinet secretary agrees, I would like to meet to discuss wording that would keep some objectives but remove the timescale issue.
Amendment 224 not moved.
The Convener
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will come back to you about whether that will be possible.
Amendment 50 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
After section 9
Amendment 202 not moved.
The Convener
The next group is on low-emission zones and the power to set emission standards. I give committee members and the cabinet secretary advance warning that I intend to push on to 12.45 or thereabouts, to try to get through as many amendments as possible; it will depend on how the debate goes.
Amendment 225, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendment 184.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 225 would allow a target to be set for lower emissions than the standard target. Although I appreciate the need for consistency in general, there should be flexibility regarding the emissions target to allow for the creation of ultra-low-emission zones. Such zones would be easier to understand than a vehicle-based exemption, as the boundary of an ultra-low-emission zone could be marked with appropriate signage.
A national standard is likely to be a compromise to ensure that it is usable by everyone, which would mean that areas with particularly severe air pollution problems would not be able to go any further than areas that were dealing with moderate problems. Local authorities should have the power, within reason, to introduce ultra-low-emission zones in their areas where there are the most severe levels of air pollution. It should not be allowed freely, but the option should be available, subject to agreement by ministers. The ministerial sign-off would ensure that the power was not misused.
In England, the clean air zone framework refers to minimum standards, giving local authorities the flexibility to go further where needed. We have the job of balancing the need for a general consistency with the reality that a one-size-fits-all approach will not always work. Limited and targeted ultra-low-emission zones are the way to strike that balance.
I move amendment 225.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 225 would introduce a power for local authorities to alter the emission standards for their LEZ, so that they could make the emission standards more stringent than the forthcoming nationally set standards in regulations. As we have already discussed during stage 1, the regulations are likely to be those set for Euro 6 for diesel and Euro 4 for petrol vehicles. Having emission standards set by the Scottish ministers in regulations allows for national consultation with stakeholders to determine an emission standard that would work for all local authorities while retaining consistency for individuals.
The existing powers in the bill will allow the Scottish ministers to prescribe more stringent emission standards in future, should that become desirable. As such, that approach could meet the desired outcome of amendment 225, but in a way that would maintain national consistency.
That approach could also dovetail with our commitment to promote the use of ultra-low-emission vehicles, by creating, in time, more challenging emission standards that only ultra-low-emission vehicles could achieve. We need clear and consistent LEZ standards to ensure that drivers will have certainty that they can move between cities without worrying about whether their vehicles comply with different emission standards in different places. That consistency will also help vehicle purchasers to make informed decisions when buying a new vehicle or planning a journey. It is Government policy to have a nationally set emission standard in regulations. I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 225. If it is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.
I have lodged amendment 184 to ensure that regulations to set emission standards under section 1(4)(a) will be approved through affirmative rather than negative parliamentary procedure, in response to a recommendation at stage 1 by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that the regulations should be subject to the additional scrutiny that is afforded by affirmative procedure, given the significance of the issue. I made a commitment to the DPLR Committee to pursue the matter, and this amendment makes that desired change. I ask the committee to support amendment 184.
Richard Lyle
I can see what Colin Smyth is getting at, but I remind him that there are 32 councils in Scotland. Although everyone is concentrating on cities, councils may want to bring in zones in their local areas. Depending on what car a person has and whether the manufacturer’s information is correct—some manufacturers have been caught out by what they have said about their cars—people could be very worried when they drive from one area to another. We must have a national standard for emission zones. I ask Colin Smyth to withdraw the amendment.
Jamie Greene
I ask Colin Smyth to clarify when summing up whether his amendment would have an unintended consequence of leading inevitably to different emission standards in different local authority zones. We have had a lengthy discussion about national standards and confusion among drivers when going from one zone to another and we all agreed that consistency is important.
My question to the Government is whether the bill allows local authorities to deviate from the national standard that regulations dictate. Regulation is the right place to dictate a technical standard. If a local authority or city wanted an ultra-low-emission zone, could the bill be used to do that, or would it require separate legislation or secondary legislation, or is Colin Smyth’s amendment 225 needed to give that power? I do not want to cause the localised inconsistency that we have discussed, but this power may benefit local authorities. I throw that out as a point for discussion.
Michael Matheson
My understanding is that different regulations would be required to set a standard that would change a zone from a low-emission zone to an ultra-low-emission zone. Regulatory change would be required. The benefit of putting standards into regulations is that the matter can be brought back to Parliament without having to go to primary legislation.
Colin Smyth
Members are correct that we debated local flexibility earlier, when the committee voted for local flexibility for vehicles. Surely that principle stands when it comes to the area that would be covered by an LEZ. It would be easier to get that message across with signage than a message that said that some vehicles were covered in one LEZ, whereas only other vehicles were covered in another LEZ in another part of the country.
12:30My fear remains that the national standard is likely to be something of a compromise, to ensure that it is usable by everyone. That means that those areas with severe air pollution problems will not go any further than an area that has a moderate issue, albeit that all air pollution is dangerous.
The power could not be freely used; it would be used in circumstances in which there was an exceptionally high level of air pollution that required going beyond the standard across Scotland. The proposal is merited in exceptional circumstances. That is why the amendment requires a ministerial sign-off.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 225 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 225 disagreed to.
Section 10—Grace period
The Convener
I move on to periods of operation and suspension of low-emission zones. Amendment 51, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 52, 226, 53 to 55, 58, 60, 61, 205, 62, 63, 206 and 252. If amendment 226 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 53 and 54. Furthermore, if amendment 205 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 62 and 63. The cabinet secretary will speak to the amendments in the group and move amendment 51.
Michael Matheson
The amendments in this group can be divided into three broad areas: the suspension of low-emission zones for events, hours of operation and grace periods.
On the temporary suspension of LEZs for certain events, the Government has lodged amendments 61 to 63 in order to make necessary and pragmatic modifications to section 18 of the bill. The committee will be aware that, at stage 1, there were various views regarding such suspensions and the definition of what might constitute such an event. Above all, it is clear from the diverse views here that flexibility is needed, which is what the amendments attempt to secure.
Amendment 62 would broaden the scope of how an event that would qualify for the temporary suspension is classified. The original focus on national importance was deemed to be too limiting and vague to many stakeholders. It was noted that councils can hold events that are of substantial local importance, such as sporting events or festivals. Therefore, this amendment would allow for suspension regarding such local events, with detail to be set out in further guidance. However, in order to ensure that such temporary suspensions cannot continue indefinitely, amendment 63 would set a seven-day limit in the absence of prior ministerial approval. That timeframe was arrived at after discussion with local government officials with experience in the area. Connected to that, amendment 61 would allow for flexibility regarding the geographical scope of such a suspension. The effect would be to allow a local authority to suspend either the whole or only part of the area of an LEZ where the event is being held, which offers the necessary flexibility.
Amendment 205 would allow a local authority to suspend a scheme indefinitely without having to state the purpose. Amendment 206 would do the opposite, meaning that an LEZ could not be suspended under any circumstances. Neither of those options would work in practice and would not offer the local authority the flexibility to operate an LEZ in a pragmatic manner.
Amendment 60 looks to make all suspensions contingent on ministerial sign-off, which seems overly bureaucratic and runs against the grain of allowing, as much as possible, a level of local flexibility. The measures put forward by the Government strike the right balance on that issue.
Amendment 58 stipulates that an LEZ must operate “at all times”, with no option to adjust or alter the times. Although the default position should be that LEZs operate 24/7, as section 13(1) makes clear, local authorities must have the option to alter that approach if there is sufficient evidence to justify a different approach. Ministers will review the design of LEZ schemes, including the hours of operation. Again, amendment 58 sets out an approach that would be too inflexible in practice.
On grace periods, amendment 49, which was debated with group 8, would give local authorities the option to apply LEZ restrictions to certain types of vehicles. That would apply only when there was a viable case to do so and would be subject to an impact assessment and a ministerial sign-off procedure.
Amendments 51 and 52, in my name, follow on from amendment 49. They ensure that the requirement in section 10(3) that an LEZ scheme must specify grace periods for both residents and non-residents will also include a requirement to specify the vehicle type that is exempt under each kind of grace period.
There is a range of interesting ideas on grace periods in the amendments in the group that have been lodged by other members. Amendment 226 would make provision for minimum grace periods, with a sliding scale for various types of vehicles. However, amendment 226 does not specify any maximum limit, which means that grace periods could be completely open ended. Amendment 252 would make the regulations that are made under the power subject to the affirmative procedure. Conversely, amendment 55 would set more stringent grace periods than those that are set out in the bill. Amendments 53 and 54 would also make alterations to grace periods.
There are obviously wide-ranging and diverging views on the matter. Setting a grace period of between one to four years for non-residents, with up to a further two years being available for residents, as the bill sets out, is the most appropriate and balanced approach to take. As such, I ask the committee to support amendments 51, 52 and 61 to 63 in my name. I ask Jamie Greene, Colin Smyth and John Finnie not to move their amendments in the group. If those amendments are moved, I ask the committee to reject them.
I move amendment 51.
Jamie Greene
I will speak about the amendments in reverse order and jump to my amendment 205 first. The cabinet secretary mentioned temporary suspensions for events. Amendment 205 would simply put a full stop after the words
“where the authority considers it appropriate to do so”
in line 10 of page 8 of the bill. Currently, notwithstanding the amendments that the cabinet secretary has lodged, local authorities will be able to suspend the operation of a zone only when an event is to be held that is considered to be of “national importance” or, if amendment 62 is agreed to, of “significant local importance”. I want to remove the top-down rule that dictates to local authorities when a suspension is appropriate. I think that local authorities have the sense to make informed decisions about suspensions, so the deletion of the rest of section 18 seems to be an appropriate way of ensuring that local authorities have the power to make sensible decisions about suspensions. I trust their judgment in that respect.
A number of members are coming at the issue of grace periods from different angles, and they have different propositions. I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s acknowledgment that there are differing views on the matter. My worry is that, if we do not move our amendments, the concept of what we are trying to achieve will be lost. I will explain why.
As it stands, the bill simply differentiates between grace periods for residents and non-residents and sets a minimum and a maximum range for a grace period. One could argue over the numbers and ask whether a one to four-year period or a two to six-year period is appropriate or inappropriate. However, instead of changing the numbers, I want to change the structure of how grace periods are offered. I appreciate that, unfortunately, it is quite difficult to present my argument in words; it made a lot more sense in tabular format.
Under my proposals, I would do things slightly differently. We would set a minimum grace period, rather than a range, which it seems appropriate to do. We would still require a maximum grace period, so the cabinet secretary’s comment that the period could be endless is not true.
My amendment 226 specifies that there must be an expiry, which is defined as
“a maximum period of time after the grace period begins.”
There would still be an onus to have a maximum period, but it is up to each local authority to decide what the maximum is, depending on the needs of their zone.
I would introduce the concept of different grace periods for different types of vehicles. In essence, that translates to residents, who are already defined in the bill, being given one extra year to prepare for the arrival of the zones, which I think is in line with the Government proposals to give residents extra time, which is sensible. By creating different categories of road user, local authorities would have the technical ability to offer different grace periods to those different road users. I have chosen “buses and coaches” as the first category, as I believe that they are already well on their way to meeting the commitment and will have less of a problem doing so.
The second category is “commercial vehicles”, which I think would require additional time to adjust to the new world. The primary objective of that provision is to support small businesses that are either based in the cities or do business in the cities. The roll-out would arrive last on the doorstep of everyday motorists. Many of the motorists who are most likely to be affected by the zone requirements drive older cars or are from lower-income households or rural parts of Scotland. It seems intrinsically fitting to give those vehicles more time than other categories of vehicle.
The Government seems to have already identified the need for different grace periods for different vehicle types, as we can see in amendment 52, so I hope that the concept is palatable, even if we argue around the numbers and whether we have one, two and three years, or two, three and four years. I ask members to support the principle of that structure, and if members have any questions I would be happy to answer them.
At stage 3, we will have the ability to amend the periods that are involved, but the concept of what we are trying to achieve is to support small and medium-sized businesses in our cities and families who need the most amount of time possible, in order to make the adjustment for the modal shift that our cities need.
Colin Smyth
I will briefly touch on amendments 51 and 52, in the cabinet secretary’s name. My only point is that I am not keen on allowing vehicle-specific exemptions to be made at a local level. That would create confusion and inconsistency and it would directly contradict—as would amendments 49 and 50—what the committee called for in our stage 1 report. I continue to have concerns over vehicle-specific exemptions.
My amendments 53 and 54 would provide local authorities with flexibility to implement LEZs more quickly when it might be appropriate to do so, and they would help to future-proof the bill. Although the introduction of an LEZ is a significant change for individuals at the moment, and one that will require a fair lead-in period, that will not always be the case. The bill will be a permanent piece of legislation and should be open enough to deal with a range of scenarios, both now and in the future.
The issue of displacement was raised with the committee during our stage 1 considerations, and I think that providing more flexibility around grace periods would allow the boundaries of an LEZ to be tweaked if needed without a two-year delay being required. For example, vehicles could be displaced into a number of streets beside an existing LEZ and, as the bill stands, a minimum two-year lead-in time would be required simply for a minor tweak to the LEZ affecting those streets. I do not think that that approach would provide the commonsense flexibility that we require. I am not suggesting that it should be common practice to go below the suggested minimum periods—realistically, it is likely that most local authorities will choose to stick with the periods that are in the bill at the moment—but we should trust that common sense will be used as LEZs develop in the future.
Even if local authorities were inclined to use the flexibility inappropriately, the ministers would have the final sign-off, meaning that an LEZ that had an unreasonable grace period would not be allowed, even with the amendments that I am proposing. The intention is simply to remove any unnecessary barriers to progress down the line.
Amendment 55 would require local authorities that opted for the maximum grace period to have the decision signed off by ministers. In the light of the climate emergency, we were asked to review every policy area and consider whether we are doing enough to address the issues. In that context, a local authority choosing to wait six years to fully introduce an LEZ is questionable, and it should have to justify such a choice. In the interests of flexibility, I am trying not to reduce the maximum grace period but simply to provide additional oversight of such a decision. Adding a specific mechanism on that particular issue—which is separate from the general ministerial agreement process—would make it clear that the maximum grace period should not be the default option while leaving the option there in case it should be needed under what would be exceptional circumstances.
12:45Amendment 226, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to move us in the opposite direction from my amendments. Given the urgency of the issue, the time that it takes to get to the point of formally introducing LEZs and the natural lifespan of cars, I absolutely do not support slowing down the process any more than is necessary.
Amendment 58, in my name, clarifies that LEZs should operate 24/7 and would ensure that LEZs were as effective as possible, as well as providing the clarity and consistency that many stakeholders told us that they need. LEZs that operated only part of the time would create confusion for drivers and would risk undermining the aims of the scheme. We should therefore make it clear in the bill that LEZs are to operate 24/7. I have racked my brains to work out a single circumstance in which that should not be the case. When, during the course of a day, should an LEZ not function, and what would the criteria be? I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said, and he did not give an example either. That is why it is appropriate that LEZs operate 24/7.
Amendment 60, in my name, would require a decision to suspend LEZs for events of national importance to be agreed by the Scottish ministers. Given that the provision is meant for events of national importance, it seems right that it should be agreed at a national level. Although I appreciate that there is an amendment to include events of significant local importance, even if it passes, the additional oversight that my amendment would provide is needed. An important event is not in itself a reason to suspend an LEZ. In fact, in many instances, a large event will worsen air pollution, making the LEZ all the more important. There should therefore be a process for identifying when a suspension is actually needed. Ministerial agreement would provide for that, as well as for consistency across the country.
Amendment 63, in the name of the cabinet secretary, would require any suspension that lasted more than seven days to be approved by ministers. There is therefore something of a contradiction in what ministers are saying on events of national importance and what they are saying on events that last more than seven days, which require ministerial sign-off. As I said, any suspension under section 18 should be subject to agreement by ministers. However, if the committee is not minded to support amendment 60, I am happy to support amendment 63, which would ensure that—as a minimum—long-term suspensions should be subject to approval by ministers.
Amendment 206, in the name of John Finnie, would remove section 18 entirely. I am sympathetic to that. However, in the interests of delivering a flexible legislative framework, on balance, I would prefer to include the mechanism that is put forward in my amendments, which would give more ministerial oversight.
As that covers all my amendments, I will leave my comments at that.
John Finnie
We know that a lot of energy and effort will go into the creation of low-emission zones. As the cabinet secretary said, there are a range of positions on that, and I dare say that my amendment 206 will be seen as the nuclear option. However, a lot of energy and effort goes into the creation of low-emission zones, and I will support Colin Smyth’s amendment 58, on their operation 24/7—not 24/7 dependent on councils. A clear signal has to be given that the intention is to improve the wellbeing of our citizens, and that will not happen if there are suspensions for events.
The committee will know of specific areas that have winter festivals and summer festivals and that spend most of the rest of the time trying to find festivals to fit in between the winter and summer festivals. All those festivals could lead to suspensions, meaning that the scheme could well be a mockery.
Pragmatic approaches have been adopted in respect of grace periods. However, a lot of effort will go into the creation of the zones, and I would not want to see them eroded. I would hope that national emergencies would override any particular issue in any case, but we need the bill to be robust. It is an important piece of legislation, and it should not be dispensed with lightly.
Richard Lyle
I hope that I am not jumping ahead. I also hope that members who supported me earlier will support amendments 3 and 3A.
On the points about section 4 and the periods of operation of low-emission zones, I am reminded that, at stage 1, I spoke about the comments that were made by the British Lung Foundation:
“Poor air quality increases everybody’s risk of developing lung disease, cuts people’s lives short and makes existing lung conditions worse.”
If we are going to have an LEZ scheme, let it operate 24/7 so that we cannot switch it on and off as we like. People’s lungs do not switch on and off—they are continually breathing in. I will be following the British Lung Foundation’s briefing to the letter, because, as far as I am concerned, we have to look after people’s lungs.
Michael Matheson
I will make a couple of points. The default position for any LEZ is that it applies 24/7, and any deviation from that would have to be clearly justified and demonstrated in order for it to be agreed.
Colin Smyth
Can the minister give an example of circumstances in which there might be a request for an LEZ not to apply 24/7? When would someone argue for that?
Michael Matheson
This might not apply to some of our larger cities, but it might be relevant for some of our larger towns. It is important to remember the basis on which an LEZ is introduced. It might be that there is a particular problem with buses in an area, and, if the bus services stop at 12 o’clock at night and do not start again until 6 in the morning, the council may say that it would be appropriate for the LEZ not to apply between those hours, because those vehicles are not utilising the area. The council would have to be able to evidence that in any application for ministers’ consideration.
I am conscious that the focus is on cities, but, for some of the smaller and larger towns that could end up having LEZs in the future, there may be a need to take a slightly more flexible approach. If we do not have the power to do that, the authorities in such areas might be inhibited in thinking about introducing an LEZ in the first place.
Richard Lyle
The cabinet secretary says that the council could suspend the LEZ between 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock in the morning, but the bill says:
“A local authority may suspend the operation of a low emission zone scheme for a specified period where the authority considers it appropriate to do so for the purposes of an event”.
With the greatest respect, people do not stop breathing between 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock in the morning. If there is going to be an LEZ, it must apply 24/7—end of story.
Michael Matheson
I appreciate that point. It will not come as a surprise to anyone that no one can go six hours without breathing. However, when we draft primary legislation, we have to think about issues that may arise further down the line. If we do not anticipate such issues and do not have the flexibility to address them, we have to go back and address them through further primary legislation. That is why I am emphasising the point that the default position is that an LEZ applies 24/7 and that any deviation from that would have to be justified.
When we lock something into primary legislation, we do not provide any flexibility for future years, although it might be appropriate to do so. Ministers can be held to account for decisions to allow flexibility in the operation of an LEZ. We are trying to future-proof the legislation rather than ignoring the point.
Jamie Greene said that it is incorrect to say that no maximum time is specified in his amendment 226. However, the maximum time allowed by the amendment could potentially be indefinite; therefore, applying the grace period indefinitely would be an option. I understand that Jamie Greene’s view is that there will be a maximum time for it, but, in the end, the maximum could mean that the grace period lasts indefinitely. On that basis, it would create too much uncertainty.
Jamie Greene
Just briefly on that—
Mike Rumbles
Oh, come on!
Jamie Greene
I apologise to Mr Rumbles, but it is a very important point.
If he chose to do so, the cabinet secretary could lodge an amendment at stage 3 that included a maximum time. However, my amendment is about setting the minimum grace period for each category of vehicle. Does the cabinet secretary support that?
Michael Matheson
We have already set out in the bill and in our amendments what we think the timeframe should be—it should be between one and four years, with a potential two-year extension for residents.
The Convener
Do you have any further winding-up comments to make, cabinet secretary?
Michael Matheson
No.
The Convener
We are coming to the end of the session. I ask members to stick with me as we go through a series of votes.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Amendment 52 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 226 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
I remind members that, if amendment 226 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 53 and 54 because of pre-emption.
The question is, that amendment 226 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 226 disagreed to.
Amendment 53 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 53 disagreed to.
Amendment 54 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 54 disagreed to.
Amendment 55 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 55 disagreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
Section 12—Time-limited exemptions
Amendment 203 not moved.
Amendments 56 and 57 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
After section 12
Amendment 3 moved—[Richard Lyle].
Amendment 3A moved—[Richard Lyle].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 3A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3A disagreed to.
13:00The Convener
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Section 13—Power to alter operating hours
Amendment 58 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con))
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 58 disagreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
The Convener
That is as far as we can go today. We will pick up where we have left off next week. Amendments to the remaining sections of the bill can still be lodged. Amendments to the remaining provisions in part 1 and to the provisions in parts 2, 3 and 4, up to the end of section 58, must be lodged by noon tomorrow.
I say to committee members and the cabinet secretary that, although we have made good progress today, it has been slow progress. We will need to work out when we can meet next week and what the start and finish times will be. I will notify committee members once I have had a chance to talk to the clerks and the deputy convener about that, later today.
Meeting closed at 13:02.5 June 2019
Second meeting on amendments
Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 12 June 2019:
Second meeting on amendments transcript
The Convener
We are continuing our consideration of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Today’s meeting will be in two parts. We will meet this morning until about 12.30 pm, and then we will reconvene at 6 pm.
I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and his supporting officials. I also welcome Claudia Beamish. During the course of the day, other MSPs will be present.
I will briefly explain the procedure. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my eye. If he has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.
Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press that amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of the other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee will immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. This will be a long session, but I ask members to keep their hands raised clearly so that the clerks can record the vote.
The committee is required to indicate that it has considered each section of the bill, so, at the appropriate point, I will put a question on each section.
We will not go beyond amendments to part 4 of the bill today.
Section 15—Use of equipment
The Convener
The first group is on low-emission zones and parking prohibitions: removal of approved devices. Amendment 59, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 152.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
Section 15 allows traffic authorities to install and maintain approved devices for the operation and detection procedure for the LEZ scheme. It also allows for that to be done via a third party. In reality, installation and maintenance tasks for equipment relating to local government services are often done by contractors or other parties on the council’s behalf. However, the provisions in the bill for the removal of those approved devices do not currently allow for that also to be done by a third party. Mirroring the provisions for installation and maintenance, amendment 59 addresses that. Amendment 152 does likewise for approved devices in relation to the enforcement of payment and double-parking prohibitions in the bill, because the same issue exists in section 50. I ask the committee to support amendments 59 and 152.
I move amendment 59.
The Convener
No committee member has indicated that they wish to speak. Does the cabinet secretary want to wind up? I think that you have said enough.
Michael Matheson
Yes.
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
After section 16
08:15The Convener
The next group is on low-emission zones: regulations on traffic signs. Amendment 204, in the name of Jamie Greene, is the only amendment in the group.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
Good morning, cabinet secretary.
Amendment 204 is about signage around low-emission zones. To my knowledge, there is currently no provision in the bill on the signage that may or will be used to indicate entry to, exit from and rules around low-emission zones. Amendment 204 would create a national standard that would ensure that there would be a legal standard of low-emission zone signage that would be used across the whole of Scotland and all zones. That would ensure that the signage that is used in every zone would be standardised to avoid doubt or confusion among drivers, and it would be an important step in formalising low-emission zones in our cities. By ensuring that signage is consistent across the country, we would avoid people being faced with different signage in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen or Dundee, for example.
I would be happy to hear comments on this small amendment from the committee or the cabinet secretary.
I move amendment 204.
Michael Matheson
Although I agree with Jamie Greene that LEZ signs will be needed to make motorists aware of the operation of those zones, amendment 204 is unnecessary. The Scottish ministers already have statutory powers to amend the existing traffic sign regulations and general directions in order to prescribe traffic signs for LEZs under section 64(1)(a) and section 64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Those powers will be utilised to create nationally consistent LEZ signs for zone entry, advanced early warnings and diversion routes around the zones. I therefore ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 204. If it is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.
Jamie Greene
I thank the cabinet secretary for that very helpful update. Will he confirm that, if I do not press the amendment, we can be assured that there will be standardisation of low-emission zone signage across Scotland? If that is the case, is he comfortable that he has the powers to ensure that that will happen? I would be happy to withdraw the amendment with that undertaking.
Michael Matheson
As I have stated, ministers already have that power, and we intend to have consistent signage.
Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
Section 18—Temporary suspension for events
Amendment 60 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 60 disagreed to.
Amendment 61 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 205 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
I remind members that if amendment 205 is agreed to, amendments 62 and 63 are pre-empted. The question is, that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 205 disagreed to.
Amendment 62 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 63 moved—[Michael Matheson].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 63 agreed to.
Amendment 206 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 206 disagreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Section 19—Ministers’ grant-making powers
The Convener
The next group is on low-emission zones: financial reporting and review provisions. Amendment 207, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 208, 209, 227, 64, 210 to 212 and 65.
Jamie Greene
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.
The Convener
At this point, I would have called Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 227, but he seems to have been delayed. I will try to bring him in during the debate, should he turn up.
Michael Matheson
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.
08:30Amendment 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.
The Convener
Brian Whittle has now turned up, but I will call him at the end.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
I am not a fan of reports for reports’ sake, so my proposal may seem strange. That said, if we are really going to tackle the climate emergency, we need the fullest collaboration between local authorities and central Government on such issues and we need Parliament to scrutinise it—I suspect that this committee will do so. I am grateful that the minister supports my amendment 210.
I do not support amendment 207—the mere notion of talking about revocation at this stage, before we have even got LEZs in place, seems bizarre.
I was a bit surprised at the ministers’ comments about amendment 212. I am not inclined to support that amendment either, because I would have thought that any local authority could review any of its policies at any time and therefore the provision is redundant.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
Amendment 65, in my name, clarifies that local authorities should be carrying out reviews of their LEZs without ministerial direction. As it stands, local authorities will report annually on their LEZs under section 23, but those provisions are not as thorough as those that are set out in section 24. Amendment 65 is not prescriptive in relation to the regularity of the reviews, but I think that the principle of having them is important. Detailed analysis of the type that is set out in section 24 should be carried out to ensure that LEZs are truly effective, and amendment 65 creates an expectation that such analysis will be carried out.
Amendment 212, in the name of Jamie Greene, effectively does the same, so I am happy to support either amendment.
The Convener
I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 227 and other amendments in the group.
Brian Whittle (South Scotland) (Con)
Sorry for my late arrival; I was not expecting to be called quite so soon.
Amendment 227 would ensure that any extra moneys that are raised through the bill will contribute
“to the improvement of infrastructure and facilities”.
The bill will remove the ability to use certain means to travel across cities, so it is important and appropriate that they are replaced with measures such as cycle lanes and pedestrian pathways, park-and-ride facilities and improvements to public transport. I ask members to support my amendment.
The Convener
No other members wish to speak to this group of amendments, so I ask Jamie Greene to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 207.
Jamie Greene
Based on the discussion that we have just had, I thank the minister for taking on board some of the amendments and I am pleased that he is happy to support them.
Mr Finnie made a fair point. I agree that it feels very negative to talk about revocation of zones when the whole point of the bill is to set them up and, as I said, to make them as successful as possible. I absolutely believe that that should be the case. However, the bill will set the parameters of the operation and management of zones, and other bits of the bill talk about revocation. I am just trying to tidy the bill up and I am pleased that the minister is happy to support amendment 207.
Equally, I am minded to support amendment 210.
Based on the minister’s comments about the ability of local authorities to carry out a review, if the minister is minded to support amendment 65, in the name of Colin Smyth, it would achieve a similar outcome to my amendment, although it is worded slightly differently. I will not move amendment 212, and I will support amendment 65, as the minister has indicated he will do.
Mr Whittle and I have lodged amendments of a similar nature on the issue of what the money should be used for. In his response, the minister alluded to amendment 64 as the correct way of dealing with that, and he indicated that guidance will be given to local authorities, but it will just be guidance. My colleague and I were trying to ensure that there will be a guarantee in the bill that, when the zones operate, the surplus money that is generated from the penalties will be used for positive transport projects and to encourage low-carbon and carbon-free transport in the zone. I do not see the problem with putting that into the bill because, as it stands, it does not dictate that; it is very much left to the local authority to spend the money as it sees fit. The money could be used for projects that do not encourage active or sustainable travel, and it would be a shame if that was the outcome. Whether or not they agree with the wording of amendment 64, I would like members to think about how, if I do not move it, we could bring back the concept of committing the bill a little more on how that revenue should be spent.
I wish to press amendment 207.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 207 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 10, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 207 agreed to.
Amendment 208 moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed.
Section 20 agreed to.
Section 21—Application of penalty charges
Amendment 209 not moved.
Amendment 227 moved—[Brian Whittle].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 227 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 227 disagreed to.
Amendment 64 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, be agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
Section 23—Annual report
Amendment 210 moved—[John Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 211 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 211 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 10, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 211 agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24—Direction to carry out a review
Amendment 212 not moved.
Amendment 65 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 25 to 27 agreed to.
After section 27
The Convener
The next group is on support for purchase and use of low-emission vehicles in rural areas. Amendment 228, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendment 253.
Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
The move towards net zero emissions by 2045 must be done fairly and there must be a just transition. We are in a climate emergency, and transport is the heaviest greenhouse gas emitter, with petrol and diesel cars making a significant contribution to that. The Scottish Government has recognised that and has committed to the phase-out of the sale of such cars by 2032. The Scottish Government also has a fairly robust programme of electric charging points, with the A9 being lauded as the first electric highway. However, more could be done.
Behaviour change at individual and household level is a fundamental part of the equation as we move towards net zero. Public transport is becoming, and will, I hope, increasingly become, a positive choice for many, thereby tackling emissions as well as having the co-benefits of reducing air pollution, congestion and driver stress. However, many people live in rural areas and are not on bus or rail routes or anywhere near them. Many are obliged to use their income to purchase a car as a necessity. The up-front cost of a low-emission car is considerably more than that of a fossil-fuel equivalent. Electric cars are still relatively expensive. For example, the average electric vehicle listed on the Auto Trader website costs £17,622, compared to £10,760 for petrol vehicles, which is a 64 per cent higher up-front cost.
Amendment 228 recognises that price differential and would require ministers to make arrangements for targeted financial support for those on low incomes in rural areas to aid them to make the right purchase as we move forward. That could be in the form of a grant. The amendment says that definitions are needed, but those are readily available and could be refined—more detail could be added at stage 3—if there is interest in the amendment in principle.
The term “low emission vehicles” would be defined as motor vehicles that emit relatively low levels of motor vehicle emissions, which could at present be electric or hydrogen vehicles. I recognise that there could be some emissions from tyre friction. Of course, there is no telling what innovation the future may hold.
The term “rural areas” would be defined as countryside or geographical areas that are located outside towns and cities. That may seem obvious to everybody, but it is important to highlight that there are readily available definitions.
On the term “low income”, the Department for Work and Pensions uses the median household income to find the number of people in low-income households. Those below the median, rather than the mean, fall into the low-income category.
My amendment 228 is supported by the consequential amendment 253, which proposes that the measures should be taken forward under the affirmative procedure. That is important to ensure robust consultation as the regulations are shaped, if amendment 228 is agreed to.
I move amendment 228.
08:45Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
Amendments 228 and 253 might seem superficially attractive but I will not support them, because we did not take evidence on the proposal at stage 1. It has come out of the blue. I do not think that we should proceed with making legislation in that way. If the proposal comes back in the future, saying that the support will be available to people who “live in rural areas”—whatever that means—could lead to a host of disputes as to why some people will get the grant and others will not. It is a recipe for disaster and conflict, so I will not support amendments 228 and 253.
Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)
I appreciate the aim of Claudia Beamish’s amendment 228. As an MSP who covers a largely rural area, I see at first hand the difficulty that constituents based in rural areas have with transport but—and it is a huge “but”—I am not in favour of a blank cheque; I never have been and I never will be. I agree with Mike Rumbles that we have taken no evidence on the proposal. How do we define “rural areas”? How do we define “low income”? There is a plethora of questions. I think that the amendment is suspect, but we will wait to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 228 touches on a critical issue. We all support the role of LEZs and the framework that the bill creates. A serious problem remains around access to low-emission vehicles. We cannot have a situation in which only those who can afford to purchase modern cars are able to drive in parts of the country. Likewise, it is not right for those who live in areas where public transport is not an option to be put at an unfair disadvantage. If members are not minded to support amendment 228, I hope that the Government will bring forward more detail on how it plans to address that fundamental issue in relation to LEZs.
John Finnie
Claudia Beamish highlights a significant issue. I have heard members say that we have not taken evidence on the subject, but everyone accepts that, largely in rural areas, there is a category of individual without ready access to public transport.
As always, the devil is in the detail. In that regard, I had hoped to intervene on my friend and colleague Claudia Beamish, but I left it a bit late. There are opportunities to look at support that could be given to car share schemes, for example. I ask members not to dismiss amendment 228 out of hand. There is a gap that remains to be looked at. I have reservations about private individuals getting private motor vehicles from the state, but there are ways around that, and car share schemes might be one of them.
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the tone that members are taking with the amendment. Claudia Beamish raises an important point and we should give her credit. At the moment, there are huge disparities in the costs of vehicles, including electric vehicles. However, I do not, for a moment, suggest that the Transport (Scotland) Bill is a place to give ministers sweeping powers that mean that they must give blank-cheque grants to anyone who lives in an undefined area and wants to buy a car. What is “rural”? I could argue that there are people who live on the outskirts of town who do not have access to a bus service. Is that a rural area?
I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary about the measures that are currently in place to assist people on low incomes who will be adversely affected by the introduction of LEZs, in the sense that they cannot afford to buy new cars of the more recent varieties. What measures are currently in place, and does the Government have plans to extend any of them or provide additional support to the groups that are mentioned in amendment 228?
For the reasons that I mentioned, I am minded not to support amendment 228, but it raises a valid point and I do not dismiss it.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 228 seeks to place duties on Scottish ministers to make regulations that set out provision to support people in rural areas with a low income to purchase and use a low-emission vehicle. Amendment 253 mandates that the regulations on those duties be subject to the affirmative procedure.
As the approach is part of a wider discussion on low-emission zones, it is important to make it clear that there is no relationship between such zones and amendment 228. The amendment would enable people on low incomes in rural areas to get support to purchase and use a vehicle even if they never drive in a low-emission zone. As such, I believe that it is somewhat misguided.
Support is already provided to those who wish to purchase a low-emission vehicle, with grants available of up to £3,500 towards the purchase of new eligible electric vehicles. Households and businesses can also benefit from our interest-free low-carbon transport loan to assist with the purchase of low-emission vehicles, and from our grant funding for the installation of charging points at home.
Jamie Greene
I think that there is very low awareness of those schemes. People whom I speak to have never heard of those grants, or of interest-free loans and infrastructure funds that would allow them to put in electric charging points. Where do they go for that money and information? I have no idea.
Michael Matheson
I think that I am correct in saying that most of those schemes have actually been oversubscribed by people who are seeking to draw down the funding. We provide the funding through the Energy Saving Trust, which operates the schemes for us; the information is available on the trust’s website.
Drivers of electric vehicles in Scotland benefit from the chargeplace Scotland network, which is one of the most comprehensive charging-point networks in Europe. We are approaching publicly available charging place number 100. The network includes approximately 200 rapid-charger points. In Scotland, the average distance from any given location to the nearest public charging point is just 2.78 miles. That is the shortest average distance in the United Kingdom, for which the average is 4.09 miles.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I agree with the cabinet secretary—it has been reported to the committee that some of those schemes have been oversubscribed.
Does the cabinet secretary agree with a point that I have been making for a number of years? I know that building new homes is not part of his remit, but perhaps he could discuss with his housing colleague the idea that all new homes should have charging points installed, just as they have solar panels or satellite dishes installed.
Michael Matheson
That discussion is already taking place internally in Government. We are looking at how we can ensure that such provision becomes part of our standard building regulations for new-build properties.
John Finnie
To deal with the climate emergency, we need a measure of co-ordination. Albeit that the schemes are oversubscribed, is there any specific targeting—or would you consider such targeting—to fill the clear gap that my colleague Claudia Beamish identified with regard to people who do not have ready access to public transport? Parameters could be set on that; I can think of a car share scheme where assistance is provided to take people to a main road where there is a public transport scheme.
Michael Matheson
If John Finnie will allow me to make progress, I will come to that very point later—I hope that he will find my answer helpful.
In the last financial year, we provided almost £10 million to local authorities to ensure that EV chargers are installed across Scotland, and £5 million to the Energy Saving Trust to support commercial and private sector businesses across Scotland to install charging points on non-local authority land. We are also committed to the electric A9, which will provide a comprehensive network of charging points from Falkirk to Scrabster to ensure that some of the most remote communities benefit from that investment. As part of that, we are encouraging local authorities to focus on solutions for remote and rural communities, which would include considering innovative approaches to on-street charging.
The plugged-in households initiative is designed to improve access to electric vehicles, using housing associations and car clubs as a form of car share. In March 2019, I made the first award, which totalled approximately £515,000, to eight social housing associations to allow them to instigate such a scheme.
I then made a further announcement a few weeks ago, on 31 May, in which I provided a second round of available funding, to the tune of £500,000, to support housing associations in purchasing electric vehicles that can be used on a car-sharing basis by those who may not have the income to afford the purchase of low-emission vehicles.
We will be making an announcement on the low-emission zone support fund that is currently being developed. It will help those who have the most difficulty in making the transition to LEZ-compliant vehicles.
Those are targeted interventions, which we are already making in order to make a difference.
I do not believe that Claudia Beamish’s amendment 228 is necessary, so I ask her not to press it, and not to move amendment 253. If the amendments are pressed, I ask the committee to reject them.
Claudia Beamish
I will start winding up by sounding rather defensive, but it will get better.
As I am not a member of the committee, I was not able to take part in the deliberations that led to stage 2. I wish to have that on the record. Indeed, I will not be voting today.
The Convener
You are always welcome to turn up at the committee. You could take part. Please continue, however.
Claudia Beamish
Thank you.
I highlight the fact that I provided some definitions, which could be refined. I take Jamie Greene’s point about those who live on the outskirts of town. Often, people who live on the outskirts of town, and indeed those who live in towns, are not on bus routes and are not close enough to train stations—many of which could be reopened, although that is a different issue.
As regards the cabinet secretary’s suggestion that the proposed provisions in amendment 228 would not be in the right place in the bill, because they are not specifically to do with low-emission zones, I was advised by members of the legislation team that this is indeed the place to put them. If the matter was to come back at stage 3, we could reconsider that.
I welcome the debate that has taken place and what the cabinet secretary has highlighted regarding the possibilities. I knew about some of them, but I did not know about others. I expect that the same applies to other members, given the debate that we have had.
I do not intend to press amendment 228. It would be helpful if I could have some specific reassurance from the cabinet secretary beyond the issues that were raised by my friend and colleague John Finnie about the possibilities for car clubs. Again, I did not know that that work was already happening. It would be helpful to have some reassurance about the fine tuning of the grants that already exist, and about the possibility of considering an increase in funding for grants in rural areas.
I will leave it at that.
Amendment 228, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
The next group is on low-emission distribution consolidation hubs. Amendment 229, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendment 254.
Claudia Beamish
Amendment 229 focuses on what would, in my view, be more appropriate delivery of goods into cities in relation to the declared climate emergency, congestion challenges, the need to tackle air pollution, and making our cities more agreeable places in which to live.
Amendment 229 is a probing amendment, and would do what it says on the tin. Heavy goods vehicles would have to stop at a consolidation hub outside cities, and goods would be transferred to smaller low-emission vehicles for delivery into the cities. Smaller deliveries could be transferred to bikes and electric bikes. That process has sometimes been recognised as the “final mile”.
There are examples on the European mainland of consolidation hubs, including in Amsterdam, where European Union funding was made available for a project. Having seen it at work in Amsterdam, my colleague and friend, David Stewart, highlighted the consolidation hub arrangement to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee.
The bill comes at a time when there is so much serious scientific evidence about the health effects of air pollution. The committee knows about that evidence, but I say for the record that there has been research on health effects on children and in relation to cancer, mental wellbeing and dementia in the elderly.
09:00How does the consolidation hub work in Amsterdam? A shift has been made to distribution via microhubs, using zero-emissions electric vehicles—60 e-freight bikes. Efficiency has increased through less parking and shorter routes, which are leading to fewer emissions and lower costs. That daily operation in Amsterdam saves about €1,000 and 220kg of CO2.
In Gothenburg in Sweden, city delivery was launched in 2012 to pool deliveries for shops and businesses in the central zone. The consolidation hub and low-emission vehicle system now serves 500 business and is financially self-sustaining.
In Utrecht in the Netherlands, a solar-powered electric caravan of trailers—which I would like to see but have not, yet—does the work of five vans.
In Cambridge, a private company called Zedify focuses on zero-emissions urban logistics, and subcontracts work from major freight companies using specialist cargo bikes, trikes and EVs.
According to a report by an EU-funded research project called cyclelogistics, an estimated 51 per cent of goods that are transported in cities could be shifted on to bikes and cargo bikes, which would significantly reduce emissions and congestion.
Amendment 229 would put a duty on Scottish ministers to require prescribed local authorities to establish such hubs and to support them in that process. Models that might be used in Scotland could also enable co-operative solutions to be developed. I declare an interest as a member of the Co-operative Party group of members of the Scottish Parliament. The regulations would be subject to the super-affirmative procedure, as provided for in consequential amendment 254.
To pre-empt a possible comment by the cabinet secretary, in view of what he said about my previous amendment, I say that amendment 299 is not meant to refer only to low-emission zones, but to cities more generally, so it potentially applies to the wrong section of the bill.
I move amendment 229.
Peter Chapman
I appreciate the objectives of amendment 229. Where they are commercially possible, distribution consolidation hubs would benefit businesses in cities through reducing their emissions.
However, my main concern with amendment 229 is in the wording: proposed new subsection (1)(a) would place the onus squarely on local authorities to establish the hubs, and although subsection (1)(b) states that the Scottish Government must provide “support”, it is not clear what that support would be. Would it be financial support or simply advice? We cannot support the amendment without figures or costings attached.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 229 sets out a useful approach to tackling an issue that came up several times during the committee’s evidence taking. A co-operative approach to low-emission vehicles will help businesses to cope with the introduction of LEZs, and will encourage use of even greener vehicles than would be possible for individual businesses. We heard very clearly that there is a big challenge for small and medium-sized businesses that might struggle to absorb the cost of new vehicles.
I hope that if committee members do not back amendment 229, the Government will look into the issue further and consider how it can support such schemes across Scotland.
On Peter Chapman’s point, it would be sensible for local authorities to take responsibility for such programmes because, ultimately, they have responsibility for determining whether to introduce LEZs, of which the proposal would be a key component.
Mike Rumbles
It sounds like a great idea: I wish that Claudia Beamish had come to the committee at stage 1, when we spent many months looking at the bill as a whole. In general, I am against such major amendments landing on us at stage 2. This is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the issue. It is a really good idea and I would have loved to have taken evidence on it in detail.
However, I am certainly not going to support amendment 229, because Parliament has a really good process for developing such ideas at stage 1. That is where we should have addressed it: I do not think that it is appropriate for it to just appear at stage 2. It is a great idea, but we have not gone through the proper process.
Jamie Greene
Claudia Beamish’s description of what happens in other cities was fascinating. We in Scotland should all share the aspiration for such provision. I really like the idea of out-of-town distribution hubs, which is an idea that the Conservative Party has been discussing for a while. Others share our enthusiasm.
The problem with amendment 229 is that it would place a duty on local authorities to set up consolidation hubs. I am not convinced that that should be a duty of local authorities. There is a place and a role for local authorities; there is also a place for central Government—and, indeed, for business itself, because ultimately, business would benefit from the idea. I am thinking of major retailers that shift huge volumes of goods into our cities on HGVs and articulated lorries.
I assume that low-emission zones will, by their very nature, ban types of vehicle that emit the worst kind of pollution. That in itself should be enough to encourage good companies to use greener vehicles to get goods into cities. However, I agree that we should not have large vehicles trundling their way through our cities. The question is how we deal with that. It is a matter of policy for the Government, which should present plans.
I am not convinced that the bill is the place to address the issue. However, I commend Claudia Beamish for raising awareness of it. I hope that, as Mike Rumbles said, it is given its due place. A committee, or Parliament as a whole, could take forward the issue in some way. I hope that we have some debate on it and hear evidence on it from the right people.
John Finnie
I was pleased to hear members’ support for the principle; I was not so pleased to hear the word “however” follow those expressions of support. I disagree with Mike Rumbles on one thing: I do not think that the proposal is a major one. Indeed, we have heard that such provision is in operation in Mr Lyle’s constituency, for instance.
The idea is about development planning. As ever, it would require co-ordination between national and local government, but we already have development plans and traffic impact assessments. I cannot believe that anyone thinks that it is a good idea for a large HGV to pull up in a small street to deliver a couple of boxes.
If we are really going to tackle the acknowledged climate emergency, doing so will be about the best use of space and how we make place relevant. We have also heard, in relation to other elements of the bill, about the implications of HGVs parking on pavements. There is also the issue of congestion.
I have seen the odd wry smile from colleagues when bikes are mentioned. Electric pushbikes are capable of carrying significant payloads—including someone of my weight. Progress is being made.
Amendment 229 is worth while, so I am hoping to hear some positive news from the cabinet secretary on it, as we heard previously.
Richard Lyle
I am sitting here listening to members making out that such things are not on the go now. They are. I have seen electric bikes on the streets, and we already have, in my constituency, distribution centres to which large lorries and even trains bring in goods. There is a major £300 million project beside the M8 that will reduce CO2 emissions by a lot because it will take a lot of lorries off the road.
Such provision is nothing new; it is already in vogue. For many cities that have low-emission zones, big lorries take goods to distribution centres outside the city and small electric vehicles take the goods into the city. It is not rocket science—it is already happening. I say with the greatest respect to my colleague Claudia Beamish that we do not need amendment 229. What she wants is already happening.
The Convener
I think that our predecessor committee went to visit such a scheme in the previous parliamentary session. We will hear from the cabinet secretary now.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 229 and 254 would impose on the Scottish ministers a duty to create regulations to insist that local authorities take steps to develop a low-emission distribution hub in their area. Although distribution hubs can play a useful role, they are principally driven by the private sector.
John Finnie
That is a very disappointing start, and is exactly the same response as the one on carriage of freight by rail. When will the Government accept responsibility for its role in transport matters?
Michael Matheson
We do accept our role in transport matters. Let me point out where that comes from.
The point that I mentioned was emphasised in the response to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s air quality inquiry just last year. Larger businesses—particularly supermarkets—already use distribution hubs to arrange and deliver goods. Richard Lyle has just referred to that. Therefore, it seems to be fair to say that distribution hubs need to be industry led in order that they can be commercially viable without the need for on-going public funding.
Currently, no distribution hubs are run by local authorities. A statutory obligation for local authorities to implement their own hubs would diminish the incentive for private companies to build them. Indeed, I understand that private companies in Scotland are already starting to utilise low-emission vehicles to bring goods into urban areas from out-of-town distribution centres. That approach was exemplified at the Freight Transport Association logistics conference in late May by the approach of the last-mile firm Gnewt Cargo, which was acquired by Menzies Distribution in 2017.
Distribution hubs can use low-emission and zero-emission forms of transport and can be commercially successful in doing so. We do not want to stifle such endeavours or, potentially, to use significant amounts of public money for measures that would benefit commercial companies in the way that would be implemented through agreement to amendment 229.
I note that Claudia Beamish lodged amendment 229 as a probing amendment. I assure her that we will continue to work with the commercial sector and our colleagues in local government to make progress in reducing the emissions that are caused by heavy goods vehicles, including those that serve distribution hubs.
Claudia Beamish
The debate has been interesting. Because of the climate emergency and its implications, it is important that beyond—or in parallel with—what is happening through imagination and development by the commercial sector, we find a robust way at local and national government levels to ensure that consolidation hubs are developed not in a piecemeal way, but throughout Scotland. We should not wait any longer.
The point has been made that there are issues relating to commercial companies benefiting from public money. On the other hand, we are in a climate emergency, and we are considering the just transition and other possibilities through the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. It is important that the private sector is recognised in what we all need to do in order to make the transition.
We should not rule out the leadership role that the Scottish Government should take on the matter. I hope that it will be possible to have further discussions on how to take the matter forward with me—and with others who know far more than I do.
A lot is happening in planning and development planning. I will consider looking at the matter through that process, as well, although it is too late to do that through the Planning (Scotland) Bill, as the period for lodging amendments to it closed yesterday.
Amendment 229, by agreement, withdrawn.
09:15The Convener
The cabinet secretary’s supporting officials need to change over as we move on to bus services. I am not suspending the meeting for that; I am allowing it to happen seamlessly. I hope that I will not have to continue to talk while it happens, so it would be great if it was done as quickly as possible. It looks as if we are all in place now.
Section 28—Provision of local services by local authorities
The Convener
The next group is on bus services and the provision of local services by local authorities. Amendment 66, in the cabinet secretary’s name, is grouped with amendments 67, 39, 68, 172, 176 and 180. If amendment 66 is agreed to, amendments 67 and 39 will be pre-empted. If amendment 67 is agreed to, amendment 39 will be pre-empted.
Michael Matheson
In its stage 1 report, the committee said:
“the requirement in the Bill that local authorities will only be able to provide bus services if they are to meet ‘an unmet public transport need’ creates an unnecessary restriction.”
The committee recommended
“that the Scottish Government brings forward an amendment at Stage 2 to remove this restriction and provide greater flexibility to local authorities in their ability to provide local bus services.”
Richard Lyle
I welcome that approach. If a local authority wishes to run a bus service in its locale, will it be able to do so?
Michael Matheson
It will. I will explain that in my contribution.
I listened to what the committee and others said and I believe that the Government amendments will achieve exactly what is sought, which is to allow councils to consider running a Lothian Buses-style arm’s-length operation. Amendment 68 will enable a local transport authority to control a company that operates local bus services in the commercial market. To encourage transparency and reduce the risk of any perception of unfair advantage, the amendment provides that an LTA that operates local services in the commercial market will be able to do so through a registered company that it controls. Such a company will operate in the same way as any other commercial bus operator does and will be subject to all the usual registration and licensing requirements.
The Competition and Markets Authority has emphasised that any operation should be via an arm’s-length arrangement. Amendment 68 will achieve that, and we will ensure that clear guidance is developed through working closely with the CMA, LTAs and others.
Like any other bus company, an LTA company may bid for local service franchises or for services that are supported under section 63 of the Transport Act 1985 and may operate services that are covered by bus services improvement partnerships. All existing procurement processes and rules will continue to apply, and LTA-controlled companies will be on the same footing as other commercial bus operators are.
It will be for each LTA to consider how it can establish and fund a commercial bus company. The financial memorandum includes indicative costs for that. It is important to note that LTAs will have to comply with state aid rules. As with the approach to bus services improvement partnerships and local service franchising, LTAs should be satisfied before establishing or acquiring a company, or deciding to use a company that it controls for local services, that the company will contribute to the implementation of the LTA’s relevant general policies.
Amendment 68 is intended to make available an option for improving local bus services that is an alternative to what is already in the bill. It will enable an LTA individually or jointly with other LTAs to provide local services in wider circumstances. My officials will continue to engage with LTAs and operators in the coming months on the options and on developing any necessary guidance.
Amendments 66 and 172 bring together the amendments to section 66 of the Transport Act 1985 to make clear that it does not apply to anything done under the new provisions of the bill for LTA-controlled bus companies or local authority provision of local services to address unmet requirements.
Amendment 176 is a minor consequential amendment to the definition of “relevant general policies” in section 48 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.
Amendment 180 is to add the new function of controlling a company providing local services to the list of specific functions that may be transferred to a regional transport partnership by order made by the Scottish ministers under section 10 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005.
I believe that John Finnie’s amendment 39 and Colin Smyth’s amendment 67 attempt to achieve the same overarching end, but I have significant concerns, as would the CMA, about how they seek to achieve it. The Government amendments are designed to give effect to something akin to the Lothian Buses model. That is an arm’s-length arrangement that encourages transparency and so reduces the risk of any perceived unfair advantage in the market. Neither John Finnie’s nor Colin Smyth’s amendment would achieve that effect.
Mike Rumbles
I welcome your response to the committee’s report and your amendment. I will definitely vote for amendment 66 or amendment 67. You mentioned obliquely why amendment 67 does not meet the need, but I would like a little bit more information from you about why. When I read it, I think it adds something to what you are trying to do with amendment 66. If I have to choose between amendment 66 and amendment 67, I want to make sure that I get it right because I want to achieve a Lothian Buses-type of operation. Could you explain in more detail why you think that amendment 67 is not appropriate?
Michael Matheson
There are two parts to that. First, amendment 66 delivers the Lothian Buses model, which ensures that local services are undertaken at arm’s length to the local transport authority or local authority. It will ensure compliance with the CMA in that, when the operator is placed in the market, it is not operating at an unfair advantage to other bus operators.
With the amendments lodged by John Finnie and Colin Smyth, there is a danger that services would not be that transparent and would not operate in that arm’s length way to comply with CMA requirements in this area.
Secondly, it is important that when any funding is being provided by an LTA for the purposes of an arm’s-length body of this nature to operate, it complies with state aid regulations, again to ensure that there is no unfair advantage in the market. Our amendments seek to make sure that that is the case, and we are concerned that the other two amendments would not provide the required transparency to meet the state aid test.
I hope that was helpful to the member. I ask Colin Smyth and John Finnie not to move amendments 67 and 39. If they are moved, I ask the committee to reject them and to support amendments 66, 68, 172, 176 and 180.
I move amendment 66.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 67 would allow Scottish local authorities to run bus services and lift the ban placed on them under the 1985 act. Amendment 39 in John Finnie’s name has a similar aim, and the cabinet secretary has proposed his own plans for municipal bus companies in amendment 68. I am delighted to see support for running municipal bus services because I have been pushing for that since before the bill was introduced. Passing the amendments would be a step forward.
Amendment 39 takes a straightforward approach, removing the ban imposed by the 1985 bill as it applies to Scotland; I support that. I take a slightly different approach to achieving the same end. The wording in amendment 67 is affirmative, so the 1985 act, as amended, would say explicitly that Scottish local authorities can run services—it would not just remove the line that says that they cannot do so.
Mike Rumbles
Will you address the cabinet secretary’s point, which is that if we vote for your amendment 67 instead of his amendment 68, there is a risk that state aid rules will be contravened and the provisions will not be effective?
Colin Smyth
I propose to vote for both substantive amendments rather than for one or the other—I will come on to that point.
Another key point that I should stress is that amendment 67 seeks to ensure that the status of Lothian Buses is protected, given the potentially odd legal position in which the company would be put if the ban from which it is exempted were to be lifted entirely.
Richard Lyle
How would Lothian Buses be affected if the Transport Act 1985 was amended?
Colin Smyth
Amendment 67 seeks to ensure that that would not impact on Lothian Buses. I would not want a situation in which a local authority in Lothian set up a bus company in competition with Lothian Buses, for example. Amendment 67 would stop that happening.
Amendment 67 and amendment 39 are different from amendment 68, in the cabinet secretary’s name, in that they would allow local authorities to run services directly, rather than solely through an arm’s-length company. Setting up a municipal bus company comes with significant risks and costs. Some local authorities would appreciate a far more flexible approach, which would allow them to build up capacity and expertise over time before making such a move. For example, a local authority with two or three buses might not want to set up an arm’s-length company but might want the flexibility to use those two or three buses locally, to meet the needs of the community.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
How will things play out if amendment 67 is agreed to and local authorities are able to directly run bus services on economically viable routes while being able to subsidise routes that are not economic? How will transparency be achieved and conflict between those two roles be avoided?
As I see it, the power to set up a separate bus company creates a kind of Chinese wall, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding between the council’s role in supporting non-economic routes with subsidies and the running of economically viable routes through a hands-off company. How would a council manage the situation that you propose in a way that was not in breach of state aid rules and that enabled electors to see with clarity what was going on?
Colin Smyth
I stress that private bus companies currently run routes that are commercially viable and make a profit as well as routes that are classed as not making a profit, as a result of a subsidy that is taken from local authorities. I see the proposed approach as no different.
There are clear procurement rules that provide for these circumstances. For example, parts of a local authority’s organisation that carry out building work bid for council work. There are precedents for such an approach.
I stress the point that some local authorities run buses directly at the moment. A key point is to give local authorities flexibility. As the bill stands, local authorities will be able only to meet unmet need, which reduces their flexibility. A bus company might have two or three buses that it runs on what might be regarded as a non-profitable route, although, purely for reasons of flexibility, during the course of a day one of those buses might run on a service that makes money. Saying to the local authority, “You cannot run that bus on that route” undermines its ability to use its buses.
I think that most local authorities would prefer to take the approach of using an arm’s-length company, particularly when services cut across more than one local authority. That would be the preferred model in such circumstances. However, a small local authority that wanted to run a small number of buses might not want to go down that route. It is important to give authorities flexibility in that regard and not to restrict them to meeting “unmet requirements”, which is still not defined.
Amendment 67 would allow municipal ownership and provide local authorities with flexibility in deciding how to approach the issue, and it would protect the status of Lothian Buses. I think that it offers the best approach and goes to the heart of what the committee asked for.
Mike Rumbles asked about evidence that the committee has taken. The evidence that the Government has brought to the committee today, on competition—which I challenge—was not given during stage 1. It was not an issue that we raised in our stage 1 report, and the committee certainly did not take the view that the model could be only an arm’s-length company.
Although I will support amendment 68 in the cabinet secretary’s name, I have some concerns about the requirement that the option of an arms-length company would be required to
“contribute to the implementation of”
a council’s
“general policies.”
09:30I am not entirely sure what is meant by the term “general policies”; nobody has been able to define it. Would that include a council’s corporate plan, for example? What is needed to meet that requirement? Once a council effectively makes a decision, that is council policy. I am therefore not entirely sure what that particular line in amendment 68 seeks to achieve. I worry that it could be open to different legal interpretations and therefore to challenges from bus companies, which might lead to a risk-averse approach by local authorities. I hope that, if amendment 68 is agreed to, the Government will consult local authorities and local transport agencies on that particular requirement. I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond to that point when he sums up.
However, on balance, I support amendment 68. I believe that the best way forward is to ensure that both amendment 67 and amendment 68 are agreed to, and we can then use stage 3 to tidy up the final wording, in the knowledge that the principle of municipal bus services is enshrined in the bill. That would mean voting no to amendment 66, in recognition of the fact that the first line of my amendment 67 is exactly the same as the whole of amendment 66. I urge members to vote in that way.
John Finnie
I concur with everything that my colleague Colin Smyth said. I am sure that all of us receive communications from constituents that express their frustrations about bus services. We know the regard that people have for Lothian Buses, which I accept is an arm’s-length company.
I will not repeat what Colin Smyth said. The public do not necessarily understand all the procedures, but as things stand I will lend my support to his amendment 67 and to the cabinet secretary’s amendment 68, with all the caveats that Colin Smyth mentioned.
I heard many of the same arguments that we have heard today trotted out previously in relation to the running of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services. One argument that I find quite surprising, and at which local authorities would have cause to take offence, concerns the question of transparency. Who for one minute would suggest that every penny of public money that a local authority spends is not accounted for? That is a preposterous suggestion.
The route ahead is not easy. With regard to the suggestion about the Competition and Markets Authority and state aid rules, there is nothing there that we have not heard in relation to the Clyde and Hebrides ferry service, which is very successfully run exclusively in the public interest. There is nothing wrong with this, but the statutory obligation of any commercial organisation is to maximise profits for its shareholders. That is why we get into a situation where—
Mike Rumbles
Are you saying, in contrast to what the cabinet secretary said, that if we do not pass amendment 66 but go for amendments 67 and 68, the issue of state aid rules is something of a red herring?
John Finnie
The member spoke earlier about evidence. This is the first time that state aid rules have been mentioned in relation to this particular piece of legislation. As Mike Rumbles will be aware, the same has been said in relation to our ferry network. I am not concerned about that. We get advice on amendments that are lodged. Colin Smyth concisely described what amendment 39 would seek to do. By its very nature, it seeks to do something very simple: lifting the ban that was previously imposed.
I think that the public want the buses run publicly, and we should afford local authorities the opportunity to run them. I will not support amendment 66. I will support amendment 67, which I recognise will mean that my amendment 39 will not be called. This is not about individuals or party—it is about giving the public the best possible means of transportation. That is achieved if things are run exclusively in the public interest and not for profit.
Richard Lyle
People will claim credit for the proposal, but some of us have been putting it forward for years. As a councillor, I proposed that North Lanarkshire Council should run bus services; other councillors have made similar proposals for years, too. We should have a set-up similar to that of Lothian Buses. How did Lothian Buses come about? It was because the City of Edinburgh Council kept its head under the parapet, and, as other councils sold off their bus services, it did not.
I thank the cabinet secretary for listening to committee members, including me. As far as I am concerned, bus companies should not feel under threat, but one small move has basically answered the call by many people in this country that bus services should be for the people, be run for the people and accommodate the people. I say to bus companies not to be fearful, but, as far as I am concerned, if they are not running a service to suit the people, the council should do so.
Jamie Greene
This has been a really interesting debate. My colleagues and I have been looking at the issue perhaps with some confusion, because the part of the bill that deals with buses is very technical. I appreciate that this discussion is about understanding what the amendments actually do as opposed to the general concept, but I could easily say that I support the notion of local authorities running services that are not just to meet unmet need.
It is very positive that the cabinet secretary has responded to our stage 1 report. The committee talked a lot about the issue, and the general feeling was that the idea that local authorities could run buses only on unprofitable routes seemed a bit crazy. There would certainly be no incentive for them to do so, and the local authorities that I spoke to had no interest in doing that. They are very happy to subsidise, where that is appropriate, but the idea that they should be restricted to running services only to meet unmet need is not attractive to them.
I am pleased to be able to support amendment 68. It provides a framework that would allow local authorities to set up a company and a process through which to participate in franchise arrangements—and, indeed, in bids and tenders—as any other operator could. Amendment 68 provides an appropriate way to do that, but I wonder whether it is the only way for that to be done.
I do not know whether amendment 67 deals with Colin Smyth’s point that some local authorities may not be suitably placed to go through the onerous process of the Lothian model. We accept that that is a good model, but it would not be right for every local authority. Some local authorities will have a couple of buses or an arrangement to lease buses from another source, and they might like to set up a service and run a franchise but would not have the ability to do that under the proposed approach, because amendment 66 simply leaves out section 28(3). I think that, through amendment 67, Colin Smyth is agreeing that subsection (3) should be removed but that positive language that includes councils should be added.
I do not think that, if we agreed to amendment 67, local authorities would be in breach of EU state aid rules or would come under the full force of the CMA. We have not heard any evidence to support that view. Unfortunately, the cabinet secretary did not give any substantive evidence for that. He claimed that that would be the case, but I cannot see how the wording of amendment 67 would allow that. If the amendment is not quite technically correct, the cabinet secretary’s excellent team of lawyers could help to correct it before stage 3. I am minded to support amendment 67 on the premise that it would give local authorities the little bit of additional flexibility that they need to run local services as they deem fit.
I am happy to support either amendment 67 or amendment 39—whichever one is pressed.
Mike Rumbles
The debate has been very useful. The cabinet secretary and Colin Smyth have both lodged positive amendments. Correct me if I am wrong, convener, but amendment 66 would pre-empt amendment 67. Although amendment 66 would allow local authorities to set up arm’s-length companies to run services, amendments 67 and 68 would allow that to happen and would also allow local authorities to run their own bus services, which is the right approach. I am worried about state aid rules, and I understand what the minister has said about that subject. Given that we are only at stage 2, the minister will have the opportunity at stage 3 to convince Parliament that that approach would be wrong. Because of the pre-emption, I am willing to vote against amendment 66 and in favour of amendments 67 and 68.
Michael Matheson
I will pick up on a couple of points. First, a local authority that operates a bus service does not do so in a vacuum—it does so in the unregulated market, which is the current model for bus services. That is why the Competition and Markets Authority says that bus services must operate on an arm’s-length basis, to ensure that they comply with the necessary competition law in the area. Alongside that, there is a need for a framework, to ensure that services remain on the right side of state aid rules. Local authorities must not fall on the wrong side of state aid rules by failing to ensure that the proper arrangements are in place for them to operate their services.
Colin Smyth referred to the possibility of a local authority having two or three buses that it wants to run on a particular route, which may be profitable. A local authority could do exactly that right now, if it chose to do so, if there was unmet need. Whether such a route would be commercially viable is another matter. If the route was profitable, the council could choose to run a service if there was unmet need and no commercial operator was running a service.
The Government’s amendment will take away the restriction that the committee asked to be removed, so that, where local authorities choose to operate bus services in competition, they will do so in a framework that keeps them within the Competition and Markets Authority rules on such matters, and within state aid rules as well.
Colin Smyth
The cabinet secretary has made it very clear that a local authority could directly run a bus service only if there was an unmet need. We are still to make a decision on what “unmet need” means, but my instinct is that it means a route that makes no profit at all.
Does the cabinet secretary understand that a local authority with a small number of buses may run a service to a rural area every two hours, for example, because that is the only time that there are likely to be any passengers but that, between those times, it may want to run a bus on a route that makes a small surplus and so might not meet the criteria for unmet need? A commercial operator might run a bus on the same route, or something similar to that route, but without making all the stops. Amendment 67 would allow local authorities the flexibility to do that without introducing the restriction in respect of unmet need. Saying that local authorities can run such services if they set up an arm’s-length company is not providing the flexibility that we need.
Michael Matheson
Is Mr Smyth saying that, if there is a commercial operator on an existing route, a local authority should be able to use its two or three buses to go into competition with that operator?
Colin Smyth
I presume that the cabinet secretary is saying that an arm’s-length council company could go into competition with a commercial company. I am suggesting that a local authority may, in a small number of cases, run a bus on a similar route to that of a commercial company, but perhaps at different times. I see that as being no different from what the cabinet secretary is saying an arm’s-length company would be allowed to do.
Michael Matheson
The point is that it would be operating not in a vacuum but in a competitive market. If a local authority used its resources to provide a bus service and to commercially challenge a commercial operator, we would start to get into Competition and Markets Authority challenges and issues relating to state aid—the use of public money for the purpose of gaining a commercial advantage over a commercial operator. The Lothian model overcomes that issue.
09:45If a local authority chooses to run two or three buses on a route on which there is no commercial operator, whether or not it makes a profit, the authority is perfectly free to do so because there is an unmet need for access to public transport. However, if there was a commercial operator on the route and the local authority was allowed to go into direct competition with it without the proper framework being in place, the local authority could be in breach of state aid rules and on the wrong side of the CMA, because it would have gained an unfair advantage over a commercial operator through the use of public money.
Colin Smyth
If a local authority ran a bus service where there was no commercial service and a commercial company decided that there was a commercial opportunity and started to run a service in competition with the local authority service, would that be acceptable?
Michael Matheson
At present, because of the way that the law is—
Colin Smyth
Would it be acceptable under the bill?
Michael Matheson
With our amendment, the bill would allow a local authority to use the Lothian model, so it could do exactly that.
Colin Smyth
I seek clarity on that point. If a local authority was directly running a service where there was unmet need and a commercial company came along and started to run a service in the area, there would—by definition—no longer be an unmet need, and the local authority would therefore have to withdraw its service. The commercial company would, in effect, have determined that a service was being provided.
Michael Matheson
That would be the position under the bill as it stands, so the committee asked for that restriction to be removed, which is exactly what amendment 66 does. It would allow a local authority to operate on that particular route if it chose to do so.
John Finnie
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Michael Matheson
I am happy to give way.
The Convener
Hold on. I am trying to allow a free-flowing discussion, but we have two members wanting to intervene. John Finnie was first, and John Mason also wants to come in. It is up to you, cabinet secretary, whether you want to take an intervention, but the first one would be from John Finnie.
Michael Matheson
I am more than happy to take the interventions.
John Finnie
Is it the cabinet secretary’s position that amendment 67, in Colin Smyth’s name, and my amendment 39 are incompetent or ultra vires? Does he accept that, albeit that we like the Lothian model, not everybody is enthusiastic about arm’s-length organisations, because they lose direct democratic accountability, as we know from various spheres of local government?
Michael Matheson
I am surprised at the nature of that question, because I am sure that, when I have been at the committee previously, Mr Finnie and others have said that councils should be able to use the Lothian model to set up a service if they chose to do so.
John Finnie
The cabinet secretary will have heard me qualify what I said.
Michael Matheson
At no point has anybody said to me that the Lothian model does not provide democratic accountability. Actually, the reason why people have said that we should use the Lothian model is that it provides just that accountability—that is exactly what amendment 68 provides for. The issue seems to be a moving target.
John Finnie
Not at all. Is it the cabinet secretary’s view that arm’s-length organisations have the same level of democratic accountability as local authority departments?
Michael Matheson
No, they do not, but they are accountable to the local authority. I do not know whether the member is suggesting that we should abolish the Lothian Buses model.
John Finnie
Of course, I am not suggesting that.
The Convener
Before the discussion becomes too stuck in one direction, I encourage the cabinet secretary to bring in John Mason and then to make a bit of headway. You have given Mr Finnie as much of an answer as he is going to get.
John Mason
I want to follow Colin Smyth’s line of questioning. I think that I understand you, cabinet secretary, but perhaps you could clarify something for me. The legal position is different, depending on whether a local authority runs its own bus service or has an arm’s-length company or something similar to run it. Even though such a company is owned by one or more local authorities, as I understand it, the legal requirements and position are different in those two situations. Is that correct?
Michael Matheson
That is correct.
The Convener
Cabinet secretary, you should make some headway if you can.
Michael Matheson
Colin Smyth also raised the issue of providing protection for the Lothian Buses model and an exemption. The Scottish Government’s amendment 68 provides that exemption, so it is a protected arrangement as it stands, which I hope meets with Mr Finnie’s approval as well.
Going back to John Mason’s point, it is important to recognise that any local authority that operates a bus services does not do so within a legal vacuum. There has to be a framework to enable it to operate in the commercial sector, and that is exactly what amendment 68 delivers. It makes sure that we comply with the requirements of the CMA and that no local authority contravenes state aid rules in establishing a commercial bus operation to deliver services in its area.
The Convener
Before we vote on amendment 66, I remind members that, if amendment 66 is agreed, I cannot call amendments 67 and 39 because of pre-emption.
The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 66 disagreed to.
Amendment 67 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
I remind members that, if amendment 67 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 39 because of pre-emption.
The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 67 agreed to.
The Convener
The next group is on the provision of local bus services by community bodies. Amendment 230, in the name of Neil Bibby, is grouped with amendments 248, 248A and 249.
Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
Thank you, convener, and good morning to you and the rest of the committee and the cabinet secretary.
These amendments on community transport and community empowerment are supported by the Labour Party and the Scottish Co-operative Party, and I declare that I am a member of that party. Each amendment seeks to bring the co-operative values of community and democracy to the bill.
Right now, transport legislation is weighted towards shareholders and profit extractors. The amendments in this group would give communities more of a say over bus services in their areas. I will deal with each in turn.
Section 28 inserts a new section into the Transport Act 1985 that allows local authorities to become providers of last resort. Co-operative MSPs consider that to be a step forward for communities that have been left behind by failures in the bus market. Amendment 230 goes further and would amend section 28 to give local authorities the option of also asking community transport bodies to act as a provider when local circumstances dictate and when it is required to fulfil a public transport requirement. That would recognise the role that community-owned operators could have in securing bus services when the market has failed.
Amendment 248 would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations creating a scheme that would allow for the operation of a bus route to be transferred to a community transport body. That would be a similar process to transfers that are conducted under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. We know that the bus market is changing and evolving, and it is important that bus services meet the needs of communities now and in future.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new section would allow ministers to make the necessary changes to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 to allow that to happen, and subsection (3) would set a timescale for such regulations to be made. The regulations would be subject to the negative procedure.
The Scottish Co-operative Party believes that the operation of a bus route should serve more than the interests of the operator. Bus services should serve the interests of passengers and the wider community, and I know that the community has made that point consistently. One way of ensuring that bus services serve the interests of the community is to allow the community to take responsibility for a service or a route. That is the principle behind the amendments.
Stewart Stevenson
In my area of the country, community transport companies already run scheduled bus services. How would your amendments interact with such existing provision?
Neil Bibby
Community transport organisations run in some parts of the country but not in many others. My set of amendments seeks to ensure that local authorities would have greater responsibility to promote community transport throughout Scotland.
Amendment 248 would grant the Scottish Government regulation-making powers to put that principle into practice. Instead of the requirement in amendment 248 that ministers “must” make regulations for such a scheme, amendment 248A, in the name of Jamie Greene, proposes that they “may” make them. That would still grant ministers regulation-making powers in primary legislation, which is the main objective of the amendment. I am interested in hearing members’ views on both amendments.
Amendment 249 would in effect create a statutory duty to promote community transport. It would require local authorities to have regard to the desirability of promoting community bus services and would place a reporting duty on ministers, requiring them to demonstrate how they have promoted such services. In a report to the Scottish Government, local transport authorities would have to demonstrate how they have had regard to promoting community bus services. Ministers would then be required to lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the operation of the act on such services. That report would detail the steps that ministers have taken to promote the services, along with a summary of information submitted to them by local authorities on how they have met their duties. Subsection (4) of the section that amendment 249 would insert would require that, in complying with the duties that are laid down in that amendment, ministers consult certain bodies, such as transport authorities, the traffic commissioner and representatives of community providers.
Taken together, my amendments seek to promote local democratic control of bus services at community level.
I move amendment 230.
Jamie Greene
I thank Neil Bibby for bringing community bus services to the committee’s attention. Scottish Conservatives have other amendments that seek to address the same issue. It is commendable that many communities take it upon themselves to try to plug gaps in services where they are insufficient.
Let us look at the effect that amendment 230 would have on section 28. As the bill stands, subsection (2) of proposed new section 71A of the Transport Act 1985 says that
“The council may provide such local services as they consider necessary in order to meet the public transport requirement”,
which is fair enough. The effect of amendment 230 would be that
“The council may provide”
or
“ask a community transport body ... to provide”
such a service. In principle, I do not have a problem with that, so I am happy to support amendment 230.
However, the reason why my amendment 248A seeks to change the word “must” in amendment 248 to the word “may” is that the former would mean that the minister would have to do that, whereas I would prefer to give them that power but not mandate them to do so. Using the word “may” places the power in the provisions of the bill but does not create an absolute requirement, so that the minister might choose to use the power if they deemed it appropriate. I hope that that is perhaps a compromise between a situation in which a minister would have to do something and another in which they would not do it at all. I hope that members will reflect on that and will agree to amendment 248A so that amendment 248 is made more palatable.
I have some sympathy with amendment 249, but I also have a problem with it. Although I agree that local transport authorities should have regard to the desirability of promoting community bus services, amendment 249 goes on to specify—in great detail and over five subsections—with whom they must consult, how such consultation should be held and how they should go about it. I say to Mr Bibby that there is probably wide support from across the spectrum of members for the improvement of community bus services. I politely suggest to him that he consider not moving amendment 249 and instead work with a range of parties and stakeholders—and with the Scottish Government, if it is so inclined—to look at how we could use the bill’s provisions on bus services to strengthen the duty to improve community transport. I do not think that Mr Bibby’s approach is the way to do that, but I agree that it should be done. Scottish Conservatives would certainly be willing to sit down and work with him on a revised amendment for stage 3, if he were minded not to move amendment 249.
I hope that I have set out clearly my position on this group of amendments.
10:00Colin Smyth
The amendments in the group cover a range of important issues relating to community transport. I am pleased to see the important role of community transport being raised, given its absence from the bill.
Amendment 230 would provide a welcome clarification on the potential role of community transport in providing services in instances of unmet need.
Amendment 248 raises an interesting question about whether communities should have the ability to take over a bus route as part of a community asset transfer. Bus routes are invaluable to communities, but communities often have little power over changes or cuts to them. I welcome the opportunity to look at how we might empower communities to better protect vital routes and run them directly if there is an appetite to do so.
Amendment 249 seeks to place on transport authorities a statutory duty to promote community bus services and report against that duty. It is a welcome amendment that has potential to improve community transport in a number of ways. For example, the duty would ensure that local transport authorities took adequate steps to support community transport to adapt to the introduction of an LEZ. The committee has heard at stage 1 and indeed stage 2 about the burden that LEZs could place on community transport. All too often, community transport can be forgotten, despite the invaluable role that it plays. Amendment 249 would ensure that it was properly supported, without being prescriptive about what that entails.
I hope that members will support amendments 230, 248 and 249.
John Finnie
I support Mr Bibby’s amendments and the important role that community transport can play.
Michael Matheson
The Scottish Government recognises the important role that community transport services play in allowing people to play a greater part in their local community. Such services help people to be independent, have a more active lifestyle and have less reliance on social and health services. We want to build on what exists, but I do not believe that the amendments in the group would help with that.
Amendments 230 and 248 are linked, so I will address them together. In my view, they are neither workable nor necessary. It is not necessary for Scottish ministers to provide a scheme for a community group to make a request to operate a bus route, which amendment 248 seeks to provide for. There is nothing to prevent a community group from applying for a public service vehicle licence or a community bus permit if it considers it appropriate to operate a bus route. The amendment would not take away the need for a body that wishes to provide a service to comply with the usual PSV licensing and bus registration legislation.
The intention of amendments 230 and 248 taken together seems to be to enable a local authority to transfer an asset, in the form of a bus route, to a community body. To be clear, I note that the new ability of local authorities to provide bus services to meet an unmet passenger transport requirement that is contained in proposed new section 71A of the Transport Act 1985, which is inserted by section 20 of the bill, is not an exclusive right or an asset that is capable of being transferred under a scheme, as is proposed. Additionally, another commercial operator may subsequently decide to start operating the route, and it would no longer be an unmet need that the local authority had powers to provide for.
If a local authority was seeking a third party such as a community body to provide for an unmet passenger transport requirement, the appropriate thing to do would be to offer it out as a supported service under the existing powers in section 63 of the Transport Act 1985, following the appropriate procurement route. To do anything else that was more favourable to a community body, which would be an operator like any other and could tender to provide the service, could breach procurement rules.
Amendment 248A seeks to alter amendment 248 so that, rather than there being a duty on the Scottish ministers to make such a scheme, there would be a power that they could use. Although I appreciate what Jamie Greene is trying to do with his amendment, as I have set out, to make such a scheme is not workable, appropriate or necessary, and therefore I cannot support amendment 248A.
Amendment 249 would place a number of bureaucratic burdens on LTAs and the Scottish Government, which would not add value to the operation of community bus services. The proposed amendment would require LTAs to consider promoting community bus services in carrying out the duties that are outlined in part 2 of the bill: bus services improvement partnerships; local services franchising; local authority provision of services; and data provision. It is hard to see how such consideration could be appropriate within those functions. The promotion of one bus service, or category of service, over others has the potential to distort the commercial market, to negatively impact on other services and to raise anti-competition concerns.
In addition, existing powers in section 63 of the Transport Act 1985 allow local authorities to take some measures to promote the availability of public passenger services, and those can include community bus services where the local authority considers that appropriate.
The amendment also seeks to make the Scottish ministers consider and report on LTAs’ actions in relation to promoting community bus services. As I have said, it is not appropriate to impose the proposed duty on local authorities, and it would be neither appropriate nor necessary for the Scottish ministers to carry out that reporting function.
All that is not to say that we cannot make progress in the area. I expect community transport provision to be a factor in any LTA’s consideration of franchising, local authority-run bus services and bus service improvement partnership proposals. That will be reflected in guidance on those elements in due course.
We will engage with LTAs as we implement the bill measures, and I will ensure that we include the promotion of the benefits of community transport. I therefore ask Neil Bibby not to move amendment 230, nor to press amendment 248 or 249, but if he does, I ask the committee to reject them. I also ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 248A, but if he does, I ask the committee to reject it.
Neil Bibby
I thank members for their support in principle for the amendments and for their constructive comments. As I said earlier, the amendments in the group deal with various aspects of community transport and community bus services, but the purpose of each is very different. The bill makes clear that there is a role for local authorities as a provider of last resort. That is not changed by amendment 230, which would simply allow a local authority to ask a community bus operator to assume the role of provider of last resort. Both local authorities and community operators are locally accountable and exist to provide public services rather than to accumulate private profit. Asking a community operator to assume that role would simply expand the powers that are available to councils and would recognise that, in some parts of the world, a community provider might offer the best solution to market failure and the contraction of the bus network.
Stewart Stevenson
Can the member point me at the rule that currently prevents the local authority from asking the community transport body to do what he is suggesting?
Neil Bibby
The bus market is evolving, so there might be changes as a result of the bill that will make that more difficult. As I indicated earlier—
Michael Matheson
There are no provisions in the bill that make that more difficult, so it is incorrect to state that.
Neil Bibby
I want to ensure that amendment 230 is made to the bill so that community transport could be used as an operator of last resort, and I do not see why that is a problem.
As I indicated, amendment 248 is based on the principle that bus services are community services and that the operation of those services should be transferable to a community transfer body. The principle is sound in other areas of policy, and a procedure for community asset transfer has been established. I propose that we apply similar logic and procedure to public transport and the operation of local bus services. The amendment would grant the Scottish Government the power to translate that policy into practice through regulation.
In the interest of consensus and building cross-party support for developing a co-operative agenda, I will not object to amendment 248 on transferring bus routes to the community. I am also happy to withdraw amendment 249 on creating new duties to promote community transport, and I will work with other parties on how best to do that. However, it is vital that we promote community transport and that that is on the face of the bill. I press amendment 230.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 230 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 230 disagreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
After section 28
Amendment 68 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
The Convener
As we are some two hours into the meeting, we will finish the next section and then take a short break. Members should bear that in mind when they move their amendments.
Section 29—Bus services improvement partnerships
The Convener
The next group is on bus services improvement partnerships and the content of the partnership plan. Amendment 69, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 70 to 72.
Colin Smyth
At various points where the bill provides for bus services improvement partnerships, amendments 69 to 72 add the requirement to consult with and take account of those who live in poverty and those with relevant protected characteristics. It is important that the partnerships deliver for all passengers. The amendments will ensure that inclusion is at the heart of the plans. In particular, the provisions on consultation will ensure that voices that are too often overlooked are included. Transport has an important role to play in the lives of those who live in poverty or who have protected characteristics. It can provide essential access to a range of opportunities and services. Equally, poor or inaccessible public transport can contribute to poverty and worsen its effects.
Amendments 69 to 72 will ensure that, as the partnership plans are developed, that approach is kept in mind. It could inform a range of aspects of the plans. The most obvious example is the affordability of fares, but it should inform a range of other decisions. For example, it might impact on decisions about routes, by ensuring that services are run to deprived areas. It is fundamental to the success of the BSIPs that we ensure that they work for those who live in poverty and who have protected characteristics. Amendments 69 to 72 will help to achieve that.
Last week, the Government’s Poverty and Inequality Commission said that, to deliver an economy that helps to tackle poverty, “deeds and not words” are required from the Scottish Government. The Government might argue that the fairer Scotland duty puts tackling inequality at the heart of key decision making, but that duty does not cover regional transport agencies, so it is unlikely to deliver what I aim to deliver with these amendments.
Amendment 71 clarifies that efforts to obtain views on the BSIPs should not be limited exclusively to current passengers. We have a significant challenge in relation to the poor patronage of bus services. Reversing those trends means engaging with people who, for whatever reason, are not using bus services but could be future passengers. That could ensure that those who do not use buses because of specific barriers, be those accessibility or cost, have an opportunity to feed into the process and highlight those issues.
I move amendment 69.
Jamie Greene
I will be pleased to support amendment 71, in the name of Colin Smyth.
Michael Matheson
Colin Smyth’s amendments 69 to 72 in this group, and amendments 83 to 94 in the group on the consultation on the making, variation and revocation of partnership proposals, seek to impose additional requirements for the content, notification of and consultation on bus services improvement partnership plans and schemes. In the issues that they raise, all the amendments are similar. They have a specific focus on ensuring that account is taken of the needs and views of those on low incomes or who have experience of poverty and who find it difficult to use or afford local services because they have a protected characteristic that is listed in the Equality Act 2010.
10:15I agree with Colin Smyth that such considerations are important, but the amendments would not have the desired effect. The amendments would require bus services improvement partnership plans to describe how schemes under them were intended to meet objectives for the quality and effectiveness of local services in meeting the needs of such persons. The amendments would also require partnership plans to describe proposals for obtaining the views of such persons on how well plans and schemes were working.
The bill gives LTAs scope to set the objectives to be met by bus services improvement partnership schemes as regards the quality and effectiveness of services, and significant flexibility to set service standards to meet those objectives.
Those objectives and the associated standards may include objectives and standards specifically aimed at meeting the needs of those who are on low incomes or whose ability to use local services is affected by their having a protected characteristic. I would expect that to be a key consideration for any LTA that embarked on a bus services improvement partnership. Given that, amendment 70 is unnecessary.
For a similar reason, amendment 69, which would require
“an analysis of how existing local services are meeting the needs of people in the area who are on a low income”,
is unnecessary. Proposed new section 3A(2)(b)(i) of the 2001 act would allow for such analysis, which would be fundamental to determining what measures a bus services improvement partnership proposal should take to improve bus services.
I am concerned that placing LTAs under such a stark duty on this matter may in practice narrow their focus. Bus services improvement partnerships will be collaborative partnerships that will have analysed existing service provision in their areas and the policies that need to be implemented to make substantive improvements. Scheme objectives may be wide-ranging, from making local services accessible to all who are on low incomes to reducing congestion or air pollution. If people being on low incomes or in poverty was causing a decline in bus service use, that should be identified in the scoping analysis.
While affordability and accessibility are likely to be key objectives in such cases, there is a risk that the amendments could cause LTAs to focus on fares and pricing to the exclusion of wider quality and accessibility measures, even if people being on low incomes or in poverty was not driving a decline in bus use. That could hamper the effectiveness of bus services improvement partnerships or decrease the appetite for LTAs to promote them. Mr Smyth’s amendments 69 and 70 are laudable but, for those reasons, I urge him to withdraw amendment 69 and not to move amendment 70.
The bill includes extensive consultation and notice requirements. They require general notice of partnership proposals and of proposals to vary plans and schemes that are in force in such a manner as LTAs consider appropriate in order to bring them to the notice of people who are in their areas. The bill also includes requirements to consult organisations that represent the users of local services. A bus services improvement partnership plan must contain details on how the LTA intends to obtain the views of users of local services as to how well the plan and any scheme under it are operating.
All of that is considered sufficient to ensure that adequate notice is given to and consultation is undertaken with anybody, including those who are affected by poverty, who might be impacted by bus services improvement partnership plans and schemes. It is important that the bill’s approach imposes such requirements in a clear way that is achievable in practice.
Amendments 71 and 72 would make matters less clear and, indeed, in some instances might impose duties that would be unachievable in practice. Amendment 72 appears to require LTAs to give notice to or to consult all persons who have experience of poverty on the future operations of bus services improvement partnerships. In that context, poverty is not defined and would be challenging to define but, even if such a definition were possible, it would be impossible to identify, consult and give notice to every person who had such experience. An inability to meet the requirement that would be imposed by the amendments may frustrate the process of partnership proposals.
The consultation on bus services that preceded the bill made it clear that quality partnership and quality contract schemes were not used because they were considered to be too onerous. I do not want to repeat that error with bus services improvement partnerships. Therefore, although I have sympathy for Mr Smyth’s aims, and I consider his intentions to be laudable, I urge him not to press amendment 69, nor to move amendments 70 to 72. If those amendments are pressed and moved, I urge the committee to reject them.
Colin Smyth
I briefly remind the cabinet secretary that, last week, the Government’s own Poverty and Inequality Commission said “deeds, not words” are required from the Government to deliver an economy that helps to tackle poverty. Frankly, simply saying that it may happen represents words, not deeds from the Government.
There is nothing in the bill that would ensure that we look at affordability to try to tackle the barriers that are in the way of people who are living in poverty accessing bus services.
Amendment 72 does not say, as the minister implies, that the requirement to consult people who are living in poverty, or those who have protected characteristics, will not be met if you cannot consult every single one of them. The amendment says that efforts should be made to consult people who are in those circumstances in developing the plans. One of the factors that should be considered as part of the development of the plans is how we break down barriers for people who, for example, are on low incomes or live in deprived communities, which often do not have bus services. We need to look at how we can use the BSIPs to tackle those issues. It is disappointing that the cabinet secretary has not made any alternative proposals on how that might be achieved.
On that basis, I press my amendment.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 69 disagreed to.
Amendment 70 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 70 disagreed to.
Amendment 71 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 71 disagreed to.
Amendment 72 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 72 disagreed to.
The Convener
I had hoped to move on to the next group, but there has been a lot of speaking. I will not point the finger at anyone, but one member spoke for seven minutes and 36 seconds, which is quite a long time to speak to the amendments. I will therefore suspend the meeting for a few minutes.
10:24 Meeting suspended.10:32 On resuming—
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on bus services improvement partnerships: facilities and measures. Amendment 73, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 77, 78, 170, 171 and 179.
Michael Matheson
Following engagement with stakeholders, I have identified the need to add to our provisions on the circumstances that surround the making of traffic regulation orders under the bill. Where the provision of a facility in a bus services improvement partnership requires a traffic regulation order for a road for which the Scottish ministers are the traffic authority, the scheme can go ahead only if it is agreed by the local transport authority and the Scottish ministers acting jointly. The amendments in this group will put in place the same arrangements for cases in which a measure in a BSIP requires a traffic regulation order to make the Scottish ministers and the local transport authority joint partners in the scheme.
The distinction between “facilities” and “measures” can broadly be described as that between “infrastructure” and “other”. Given the broad nature of the concept of measures, I am seeking to ensure that a scenario in which a traffic regulation order is required in such circumstances is catered for in the bill to provide parity with the concept of facilities. Amendment 73 will give effect to that by inserting
“or the taking of a measure”
in proposed new section 3E(1) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.
Amendments 77, 78, 170 and 171 are consequential amendments to ensure that measures are included alongside facilities in the circumstances that I have set out.
The Scottish Government listened to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendations in its stage 1 report. Accordingly, I have lodged amendment 179 to ensure that any regulations that are made by ministers
“about what may constitute a facility or measure”
will attract the affirmative procedure.
I move amendment 73.
Amendment 73 agreed to.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on bus services improvement partnerships: traffic regulation orders. Amendment 74, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 75, 76, 175 and 177.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 73 in the previous group, which was on bus services improvement partnerships: facilities and measures, put in place arrangements for cases in which a measure in a bus services improvement partnership requires a traffic regulation order on a road for which the Scottish ministers are the traffic authority, making the Scottish ministers and the local transport authority joint parties to the scheme. The amendments in this group are consequential on the policy intention behind amendment 73 and the other amendments in the previous group.
Amendment 74 provides a definition in order to be clear as to what constitutes a “traffic authority”, by reference to section 121A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Amendment 75 amends proposed new section 3E(2) of the 2001 act to confirm that bus services improvement partnership schemes under the circumstances that I have set out may only be made, postponed, varied or revoked by local transport authorities and Scottish ministers jointly.
Amendment 76 is a consequential amendment, and ensures that measures are included alongside facilities in the circumstances that I have set out.
Amendments 175 and 177 seek to relax the definition of a TRO for the purposes of a BSIP provision. Currently, the definition in the 2001 act restricts the making of a TRO to a purpose relating to the regulation of the use of the road by public service vehicles—namely, buses. That is potentially too restrictive an approach, given that TROs may be required to enable measures to be taken in relation to car parking, for example. The definition is being relaxed, and it is being allowed to default back to its natural meaning, so that LTAs have a broader suite of options available to them.
I ask members to support amendment 74 and the other amendments in the group.
I move amendment 74.
Amendment 74 agreed to.
Amendments 75 to 78 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
The Convener
The next group is on bus services improvement partnerships: regulations on partnership time. Amendment 281, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 79, 79A, 282, 80, 80A and 178.
Jamie Greene
This group of amendments is on bus services improvement partnerships, which are commonly known as BSIPs. The amendments specifically concern the regulations on partnership timings.
As the bill stands, proposed new section 3F of the 2001 act, “Effect of partnership plans and schemes”, states that a local transport authority must provide a facility or take a measure that forms part of a BSIP
“not later than the date specified in the scheme”.
However, proposed new section 3G of the 2001 act, “Postponement of partnership scheme coming into operation”, seems to roll back that commitment somewhat. It states that
“A local transport authority may, if they consider it appropriate, decide to postpone the coming into operation of a partnership scheme or any part of it”.
It goes on to say that any such postponement should be no longer than 12 months.
The reality is that postponing a bus priority measure would, in effect, also postpone the operator’s ability to generate passenger growth and income. Expecting operators to meet the additional service standards would perhaps increase their operating costs, too.
Amendments 281 and 282 specifically seek to address and cap the length of postponement and the number of times that a postponement can take place.
Amendments 79A and 80A are amendments to the cabinet secretary’s amendments 79 and 80. Amendment 79A would additionally insert a limit of 24 months on a postponement, if that is deemed appropriate by ministers. Amendment 80A does the same in relation to amendment 80.
Amendments 79, 80 and 178 would result in ministers having the power to postpone the implementation of the partnership scheme for more than a year, which could hinder the timely implementation of such a scheme. Granting that power is unnecessary. Local authorities should be able to implement the scheme at a time that they see fit, and the current provisions in the bill provide a good enough framework for local authorities. For that reason, I am not minded to support amendments 79, 80 and 178.
My amendments, and some of the others that I will address later, were drafted in consultation with the Confederation of Passenger Transport—I thank it for its involvement. They reflect its views and those of many of the operators in the industry.
I move amendment 281.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 79, 80 and 178 are designed to allow Scottish ministers by regulation to amend the maximum period of postponement for a planned bus services improvement partnership scheme or any variation of such a scheme. Given the nature of the powers, I believe that it is appropriate that they are subject to the affirmative procedure. We have lodged the amendments as it seems important that some flexibility is built into this part of the process in order that reasonable adjustments can be made over time in response to the experience of schemes that are in operation or shifting market dynamics. It might be that longer or shorter time periods are more appropriate in order to minimise the impact of any postponement on the parties to such an agreement. We will only know that, however, through watching and learning from the operation of schemes.
A postponement is not an option to be taken lightly by the LTA. The collaborative nature of the preparation of the plan and the scheme should highlight any potential difficulties in that regard, and those should be accommodated accordingly. Any postponement will be for genuinely unforeseen and unavoidable reasons. It would delay a scheme that the parties who are involved have spent time and effort putting in place, and, as such, it is not anticipated that postponement is an action that LTAs would take lightly or repeatedly. However, we cannot foresee all the eventualities, and have sought, in all the bus services improvement partnership provisions, to strike the balance between a clear process and flexibility.
Jamie Greene’s amendments 79A and 80A would set the maximum period for the postponement of a planned bus services improvement partnership, or any variation of one, at 24 months. His amendments 281 and 282 would put in place the additional condition that a bus services improvement partnership or the variation of such a partnership may be postponed only once. Although I agree that postponement of a bus services improvement partnership would create considerable uncertainty for the parties to the agreement, I would wish to avoid such an overly restrictive approach to the process. Such restrictions could ultimately be problematic for the LTA, and could result in people finding themselves in a situation in which they must bring into operation a scheme that does not yet have all the standards, facilities or measures in place. I would wish to avoid such a procedural difficulty where possible.
It is for those reasons that I propose that the element of flexibility can be taken forward through the regulation-making power that is provided in relation to time periods for postponements, subject to the appropriate safeguard of affirmative parliamentary process.
The level of specificity of Jamie Greene’s amendments would impose a potentially restrictive regime, which I do not believe is appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, I ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 281 or move his other amendments in the group, and to support amendments 79, 80 and 178.
The Convener
I invite Jamie Greene to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 281.
Jamie Greene
I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said. I think that he makes a valid point about amendments 281 and 282. I would not want to create an unintended consequence whereby a scheme would have to be implemented even if people were not ready to do so. I totally take that point on board. On that basis, I will withdraw amendment 281 and not move amendment 282.
However, I would like to make the point that the cabinet secretary’s amendments 79 and 80 both say that the minister may, by regulations,
“specify a different total period of postponement than the one for the time being specified”.
There is no limit to how long that could be. I think that a limitation of 24 months’ postponement is reasonable. As the amendments are currently drafted, such a postponement could last for several years or decades. That is not fair on either the LTA or the operators involved in the partnership.
As the cabinet secretary said, it is a collaborative approach.
10:45Michael Matheson
As I have stated, any time period will be specified through regulations under the affirmative procedure and so will require parliamentary approval.
Jamie Greene
Amendment 80 says:
“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend subsection (5) to specify a different total period of postponement”.
That would mean that the maximum period of postponement would be set as part of those regulations.
Michael Matheson
As I have stated, the limits would be made through regulations that would come under the affirmative procedure, which means that they would have to come before Parliament for approval. Any time limit would have to be agreed by Parliament.
Jamie Greene
Thank you for confirming that, cabinet secretary. That provides me with some comfort.
Amendment 281, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 79—moved [Michael Matheson].
Amendment 79A not moved.
Amendment 79 agreed to.
Amendment 282 not moved.
Amendment 80 moved—[Michael Matheson].
Amendment 80A not moved.
Amendment 80 agreed to.
The Convener
The next group is on bus services improvement partnerships: reports on partnership schemes. Amendment 231, in the name of Jamie Greene, is the only amendment in the group.
Jamie Greene
Amendment 231 is on the reporting of partnership schemes. Proposed new section 3J of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 details the requirement for a local authority to report on the effectiveness of a partnership scheme every 12 months. Experience from the current statutory quality partnership models—the predecessor to BSIPs—has demonstrated that local authorities do not always deliver timely or comprehensive data. That undermines the partnership’s ability to make informed decisions on its future direction.
Amendment 231 sets out additional reporting requirements to specify extra information. The bill should be amended to include a requirement that annual reporting on effectiveness includes up-to-date and relevant data relating to service standards and the BSIP’s aims, including peak and off-peak average bus speeds, and for those figures to become the basis for further local authority action should there be no improvement to services.
I am keen to hear any comments that the cabinet secretary and other members have on those additional reporting requirements and whether they would be useful to a BSIP, and on the difference from a statutory quality partnership.
I move amendment 231.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 231 seeks to impose additional requirements on local transport authorities regarding what the annual report on bus services improvement partnership schemes must contain.
As it stands, the bill requires the LTA to prepare and publish an annual report on the effectiveness of a BSIP scheme and sets out who is to be consulted during the preparation of that report. It also specifies that the LTA must consider representations that are made to it about the effectiveness of the scheme. The reporting requirement relates to the overall effectiveness of the scheme, and I consider that to be broad enough to encompass the first aspect proposed by amendment 231 on the achievement of the scheme objectives on quality, effectiveness and service standards.
On the requirement to include information on bus speeds, I want to be clear that those are exactly the sort of metrics that will be used by many partnerships when they are considering establishing a partnership, given the importance of tackling congestion to make bus services more attractive to passengers. However, it is not necessary to prescribe a reporting duty in relation to any specific indicators over any other in primary legislation. Each scheme will be unique. We wish to avoid a scenario in which reports on bus speeds are published when addressing those speeds is not a scheme objective. When bus speeds are a key indicator that the scheme aims to tackle, they should be addressed in the report.
We intend to set out in guidance further details about what the reports should contain, and my officials will work on that with bus operators, local transport authorities and other stakeholders.
There is a regulation-making power in proposed new section 3L of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, should that be considered a useful and proportionate course of action to take at a future date.
I understand what Jamie Greene is seeking to achieve, but I urge him not to move amendment 231. If the amendment is moved, I ask the committee to reject it.
Jamie Greene
The cabinet secretary says that the data is important and that these things should be monitored, but he does not seem keen to make it a requirement for them to be measured or reported on. That seems strange.
Proposed new section 3J(1) states that the LTA must
“publish a report on the effectiveness of the scheme”
and that is about as much as it says. It does not go into any great detail.
Amendment 231 provides helpful additional recommendations. The cabinet secretary says that that information will be included in the guidance, but we have not seen it. If the minister is willing to share the guidance with the committee, perhaps ahead of stage 3, we could see whether it is suitable. I am simply asking that the data be provided. What is done with the data is another matter but it would be useful to have it, given the importance of improving average bus speeds to improve modal shift to buses.
Subsection (c) of the new section that is proposed in amendment 231 says that the report must include information
“where the progress towards achieving the objectives and service standards is not satisfactory, on the steps the local authority intends to take.”
We are not just talking about reporting numbers for their own sake; we are setting out a plan for how the schemes will be improved. I do not see that as an onerous task for the partnerships; it would be a useful collection of important data.
I hope that members will agree that the provision should be included. I am minded to press amendment 231.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 231 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 231 disagreed to.
The Convener
The next group is on bus services improvement partnerships: provision of information by operators. Amendment 81, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 82, 98, 102 and 174.
Michael Matheson
The committee’s stage 1 report recommended that the Scottish Government should consider whether the service data provisions that are contained in the bill might provide sufficient information to enable a local transport authority to fully evaluate the pros and cons of using the powers in part 2 of the bill.
Amendments 81 and 98 seek to address that issue by inserting new sections 3JA and 13QA into the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to provide a local transport authority with the powers to gather information from bus operators when considering and implementing local service franchises and bus services improvement partnerships.
Amendment 174 amends section 39 of the 2001 act to enable the traffic commissioner to impose a penalty on an operator who fails to comply with a requirement to provide information under those new sections.
The information that can be required under these provisions can be used only for the purposes that it has been obtained for. The new provisions create offences in respect of any breach of the conditions of use or disclosure by an LTA or a person acting on its behalf.
Officials had discussions with stakeholders, including the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK and the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers, in developing these amendments and will continue to do so as regulations and guidance are developed.
I am grateful to Colin Smyth for his amendments in this group. However, I consider that the Scottish Government amendments fully address the information requirements. As such, amendments 82 and 102 are unnecessary, and I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to move them. If they are moved, I ask the committee to reject them and to support amendments 81, 98 and 174 in my name.
I move amendment 81.
Colin Smyth
My amendments 82 and 102 would allow ministers to set out in secondary legislation what information must be provided to local transport authorities for the purpose of developing BSIPs and franchises. They serve a similar purpose to amendments 81 and 98 from the cabinet secretary. Giving local authorities access to the data that they need to set up BSIPs is crucial to ensuring that the new powers are used. A number of stakeholders raised this issue in evidence to the committee, and I am glad that the cabinet secretary has listened to those concerns and to the committee’s recommendation at stage 1 and introduced amendments on the issue.
I am happy to support the cabinet secretary’s amendments and not to move mine, as the cabinet secretary’s amendments are more detailed and certainly cover the issue that we have been discussing.
Amendment 81 agreed to.
The Convener
The next group is on bus services: fair work. Amendment 232, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendment 242.
Colin Smyth
Amendments 232 and 242 call for ministerial direction on the need to incorporate the principles of fair work in BSIPs and franchises. Working conditions and wages in the sector are under constant pressure and the lack of collective bargaining in the sector has led to a race to the bottom, which has seen bus driver wages fall well below average wages.
Significant amounts of public money are spent on bus services; in fact, public money makes up close to half of all bus operator revenue. Given how much public money supports the bus operators, they should be upholding the highest standards of employment terms and conditions and we should be using all available mechanisms to ensure that that is the case. The introduction of BSIPs and franchises is such a mechanism.
I am conscious that employment is a reserved issue and I have tried to be mindful of that in my amendments, but my approach here is exactly the same approach as that which was proposed by the Government in the recent South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, which was passed unanimously by members last week. The amendments do not detail any specific responsibilities; that would be a matter for direction, although I have views on what should be included. This is simply about agreeing that the principles of fair work should be enshrined in the bill through these particular agreements.
I move amendment 232.
Peter Chapman
Unfortunately, I cannot support either amendment in this group, because the fair work framework was established by the current Government and any new Government that came into power could change the policy and the framework, which would then become redundant. It is therefore not appropriate to refer to it in the bill.
Colin Smyth
Can you explain why you voted for the same wording in the case of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill last week?
Peter Chapman
No, because I cannot remember exactly what the process was but I stick by what I said with regard to this bill.
The Convener
I am sure that that is a debate that you can continue later. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can add to that.
Michael Matheson
I will try, convener. Colin Smyth’s amendments 232 and 242 seek to require Scottish ministers to issue directions to local transport authorities to require them to specify in bus services improvement partnerships and franchising frameworks how each authority or local service operator
“must seek to promote fair work in exercising its functions”.
The directions would also have to set out what fair work means in that context.
I support in principle what Colin Smyth is trying to do. As the committee knows, the Scottish Government supports fair work practices and wishes to promote them as far as it is practical to do so within the limitations that are imposed by the reservation of employment and industrial relations to the UK Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, and within procurement rules.
11:00In some respects, Colin Smyth’s amendments resemble Scottish Government amendments that Fergus Ewing lodged at stage 3 of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, which passed that stage last Wednesday. However, the proposed amendments to the bill before us are very different from those other amendments in the light of the different policy and legal contexts in which the provisions would operate.
I have a number of concerns about incorporating similar amendments into the bus services provisions. With regard to franchising, I am not persuaded that the amendments are necessary. Franchising will be delivered through franchise agreements. Those are regulated procurement processes in respect of which local transport authorities are already required to have regard to the statutory guidance on addressing fair work practices, including the payment of a living wage. The need for an additional central Government direction in the context of franchising is therefore doubtful.
For bus services improvement partnership plans, the use of ministerial directions would be quite unusual and arguably inappropriate. The context around the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill concerned the duties of a public body. It is appropriate for ministers to take broad powers to direct public bodies. However, in the case of bus provision, we are considering the duties of local transport authorities. Most of those are local authorities, and any power to direct a local authority in the exercise of its functions should be appropriately constrained. A ministerial power of direction that is as potentially broad and far-reaching as Colin Smyth proposes may risk cutting across local democratic accountability. For that reason, if we were to seek to impose obligations in respect of fair work in relation to the bill, it would be more appropriate to do so by means of statutory guidance than by ministerial direction.
Although I understand why Colin Smyth has sought to adapt the Government’s amendments to the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill to apply to the bill that is before us, that gives rise to some technical issues, given the different legal framework that the bill creates. It is not clear whether the fair work directions in this case are intended to be binding on LTAs. It is also not clear whether the ultimate intention of a direction would be to impose, through partnership schemes, legal duties on bus operators to promote fair work when carrying out their business.
John Finnie
I am sure that the cabinet secretary would not want to give any cause to suspect anything other than that he wants the highest standards of employment to apply. Is it possible that the Scottish Government will come back with an amendment that would incorporate those provisions at stage 3?
Michael Matheson
If the member is patient and allows me to finish, I will come back to that particular point.
Given the procedures and enforcement powers that are connected to bus services improvement partnerships in particular, it is unlikely that the amendments as drafted, and any directions under them, could ensure that fair work considerations would effectively be taken into account.
Again, there is a distinction to be drawn between these amendments and the amendments that were agreed to in relation to the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, which imposed a straightforward power to direct the new south of Scotland enterprise agency and a duty on it to comply with such direction. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 232 and 242 as they stand. However, given the Government’s clear commitment to fair work and to embedding and promoting fair work principles within the limits of our powers and the powers of the Parliament, I commit today to consider how best we may weave fair work considerations into the bus services provisions of the bill in advance of stage 3. I am very happy to work with Colin Smyth on that issue.
That being the case, I ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendments 232 and 242. If those amendments are pressed, I ask members to vote against them.
Colin Smyth
I am pleased to have reminded the Government of its commitments under the fair work agenda. Given the cabinet secretary’s commitment to work with me on possible amendments at stage 3, I will not press amendment 232. I invite Peter Chapman to come along to those discussions, too. [Laughter.]
Michael Matheson
I would be very happy for Peter Chapman to attend, if he wishes to.
The Convener
This all sounds very consensual.
Amendment 232, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 82 not moved.
The Convener
The next group is on bus services and transport information: accessibility. Amendment 233, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 243, 109, 109A, 109B, 250, 250A, 250B and 258.
Colin Smyth
All the amendments in this group are intended to improve accessibility on buses. UK-wide equality legislation provides a floor but not a ceiling for accessibility standards. We should be constantly looking at ways to improve accessibility on public transport, and the bill provides a number of opportunities to do that.
Amendments 233 and 243 would allow BSIPs and franchises to include provisions on accessibility—that would be just one way in which we could use the new mechanisms in the bill to improve accessibility.
Some local transport authorities already use tendering to deliver more accessible services. Amendments 233 and 243 would encourage that to become the norm in the development of BSIPs and franchises. It is crucial that they deliver improvements for all passengers, including those with disabilities or other mobility issues, and the amendments would help to achieve that. They are not prescriptive—I appreciate that different areas may have different needs—but I think that we should be clear in the bill that agreements should consider these issues.
Amendment 109 would require all new and refurbished bus stops to be made more accessible. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that disabled people can use public transport as safely and independently as possible—I am sure that everyone here shares that aim.
Amendment 109 would remove obstructions and hazards from bus stops and require step-free access. It would stop the use of floating bus stops, where cycle lanes run between the pavement and the bus stop. Those are serious hazards, particularly for blind and partially sighted people.
Amendment 109 would not require every bus stop in the country to be altered to meet the standards, but would create a new standard for new bus stops and other bus stops when they are being refurbished.
Putting those provisions in legislation would ensure that best practice is followed consistently across the country and that we do not continue to develop bus stops that are not fully accessible.
Amendment 250 would require bus drivers to undertake disability awareness training annually. As it stands, drivers have to do the training on a one-off basis. That creates a risk of the details of the training being forgotten over time, particularly in scenarios that drivers do not encounter regularly. There is also a risk that best practice moves on and that drivers who have not received any training since the start of their careers are not kept up to date. Doing the training annually would ensure that drivers receive regular training and always have the most up-to-date information. It would also allow them to raise any questions about scenarios that have occurred during the previous year.
The amendment does not call for intensive, lengthy training every year—realistically, we would be looking for the training to take one day a year. I think that that is a reasonable ask, given the benefits of improving disabled people’s experience of using public transport and improving drivers’ confidence and capabilities in that area.
Amendments 250A and 250B, in the name of Jamie Greene, would replace the requirement for annual training with a requirement for training whenever there are significant changes to relevant legislation. My concern is that those amendments would undermine the key aim of amendment 250, which is to ensure that training would be regular. It is possible for drivers to work for long periods of their career without the legislation changing, during which time they could easily forget details of their training and best practice could evolve.
Amendment 258, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, calls for ministers to publish a report, which would set out what they have done
“to ensure that all information about public transport services is provided in an accessible form”
and the steps that they are to take based on that report’s recommendations.
Amendment 258 would be a useful addition to the bill. The issue of accessible information, which is of huge importance, is one that I try to address in amendment 107. The work required would be useful in identifying any gaps and the actions needed to ensure that information about public transport services is accessible.
I move amendment 233.
The Convener
I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 109A and any other amendments in the group.
Jamie Greene
It is amendment 190A.
The Convener
What did I say?
Jamie Greene
109A.
The Convener
It is amendment 109A—you can correct me if you like, but let us speak to amendment 109A.
Jamie Greene
Just to clarify, amendment 109A is the one on stopping places and is further to Colin Smyth’s amendment.
I am pleased that Colin Smyth has brought these two substantive issues to the committee; they are important points. One is about the accessibility of bus stops, and the other is about driver awareness training. I will speak to each of the amendments separately and explain why I am trying to amend them. I hope that they are not perceived as weakening the intention behind the amendments.
I am happy to support amendments 233 and 243—a lot of the numbers are very similar today, convener; I apologise.
My amendment 109A would simply add the words “where practicable” after “must”. I agree that if we are building a new bus stop or refurbishing a bus stop, and spending capital on doing so, we should do that in a way that improves access to and from buses at that stop. However, we need to give local transport authorities and local authorities some leeway over what can and cannot be done when creating bus stops.
The point about the need to improve stops is an important one, and I also agree that it would be unreasonable to retro-upgrade all existing stops given their various guises and natures. My small amendment would add a pragmatic element to Mr Smyth’s proposal, because it is impossible to anticipate every individual circumstance when it comes to building stops, or indeed what funding is available for new or refurbished stops.
Amendment 109B would remove three of the additional rules around what must go into the thought process on new stops. I actually thought that the wording of the proposed new section was perfectly fine up to subsection (2)(a)—I would have stopped the amendment there. It says that there is a duty that any new stopping place should be accessible in accordance with other pieces of legislation.
However, it then goes on to be prescriptive by saying that a stopping place should
“not share any part of the carriageway with a cycle track,”
and should not require the use of steps.
I refer back to my earlier point. I do not know the individual circumstances of every stop that will be built in the future; there could be hundreds or thousands of them, and it would be unreasonable to assume that there would not be a step involved in every circumstance. Many older buses cannot be retrofitted to be accessible, but many users would still like to use those services with other means of assistance. The amendment is too prescriptive.
Amendment 109B is a compromise on the proposals set out in Mr Smyth’s amendment, which I agree with. I am not seeking to weaken it, just to make its application a little bit more practical.
Mr Smyth also makes an important point about disability training. I support the general principle of improving disability training among drivers. Like many other members, I met stakeholders, including the Royal National Institute of Blind People, who asked us to support the provision in its entirety.
My amendment 250A would remove the requirement for annual training, which is an overly onerous duty on operators. I can see the merit in continuous training, but putting the annual requirement into the bill would mean that operators would, in effect, be breaking the law if they were, for any reason, unable to guarantee that all drivers and all bus operators had undergone training every single year. For that reason, I think that we should remove the annual duty while pushing ahead with the rest of the provision.
Amendment 250B seeks to ensure that additional training is undertaken when significant changes are made to legislation. I hope that the minister will comment on that.
I will leave my colleague Jeremy Balfour to speak to his amendment 258.
11:15Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)
I welcome all the amendments in this group; they are helpful and I hope that committee members will support them.
Members will consider a number of amendments in my name that relate to disability. Disability and transport is a key issue and I welcome what the bill does in that regard.
All committee members want everyone to be able to participate in society. However, many disabled people face obstacles to securing that right. Public transport is often the answer. Let me give a personal example: I am unable to drive, and if there were no public transport my life would be much more limited. That is true for many people, particularly if they live in rural areas of Scotland.
Amendment 258 would require the Scottish Government to prepare a report on how we can make transport and the information about it accessible. People who are blind or partially sighted depend on audio announcements, mobile phone applications and advice from other people. The technology is changing rapidly, so it would be helpful to have such a report and to consider how to take things forward over the next years.
We should not limit the approach to bus services. We could radically change the information that is available to people who use trains and other forms of public transport. That would benefit not only disabled people but the rest of society, because if more people were able to use public transport their carbon footprint would be reduced, and there would be an economic benefit, too, because more people with disabilities would be able to go out, spend money and—more important—do jobs and earn money.
Disability charities and disabled people to whom I speak tell me that disabled people simply cannot get to jobs, because of transport issues. My proposed approach would be a small step towards making information on public transport more accessible. I hope that the Government and committee members will look favourably on amendment 258.
Mike Rumbles
Amendment 258 says, in effect, that the Scottish ministers must
“ensure that all information about public transport services is provided in an accessible form”.
It goes on to say that “accessible form” means what ministers say that it means but must include
“the availability of information in audible form”.
Does that mean that audible information must be provided at every bus stop throughout the land? How practical is that?
Jeremy Balfour
I think that the answer is no, that is not practical at the moment. However, we do not know where technology is going and such an approach might well become possible in a number of years. Members who use the buses in Edinburgh will know that a lot of bus stops provide real-time information. I understand that it is already possible to put that information in audible form, which would be a step forward. Also, there are many iPhone apps that could be used to give information in an audible form.
Amendment 258 is not prescriptive, in that it does not say what must happen; it asks about what is available and what could happen, as you will see from subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new section that it would create.
Mike Rumbles
I hear what you say, but I am looking at the wording of amendment 258—and we have to vote on the amendment—and it requires ministers to set out how the information is available throughout the land
“Not later than 12 months after the day of Royal Assent”.
I just do not think that that is practical.
Jamie Greene
You make a valid point, but I do not think that amendment 258 would require all the information to be available in audible form by then. It would require ministers to say what
“steps they have taken to ensure that all information ... is provided in an accessible form”.
That does not mean that audible information will be available at every bus stop. The amendment is not prescriptive, which seems a better approach. It would not require all information to be available within 12 months of the bill’s passing.
Mike Rumbles
I am looking at what it actually says, in English, in the amendment. It says:
“Not later than 12 months after the day of Royal Assent, the Scottish Ministers must publish a report setting out—
(a) the steps they have taken to ensure that all information about public transport services is provided in an accessible form”.
It then explains that “accessible form” means
“the availability of information in audible form”.
That is what amendment 258 says.
The Convener
I will bring in John Finnie, and then ask the cabinet secretary whether he can shed some light on the issue.
John Finnie
I hear what Mike Rumbles says, but I think that it would be perfectly competent for the Scottish ministers to say that they are aware of a developing situation and that they are hopefully moving towards meeting the requirement. As Jeremy Balfour said, it is an extremely fast-moving situation. Not everyone has apps on their phones, but some of the apps that are available have greatly benefited people who have a disability and I think that the amendment is just trying to reflect that.
The Convener
No other members have indicated that they wish to speak. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can shed some light on this and other matters.
Michael Matheson
The amendments in this group deal with the important issue of accessibility. I agree with the importance of making public transport accessible for everyone. The Scottish ministers have made clear their expectations that Scotland’s public transport providers will continually improve their performance in helping disabled people to make better journeys. For our part, the Government is taking a whole series of actions and making investments to make that happen—from our work to design new trunk road projects inclusively for people who have a mobility or sensory impairment, to our investment in the national concessionary travel scheme for disabled people.
As we discussed in the context of bus services improvement partnership plans on 10 June, it is worth noting that there is an existing legal framework that currently makes provision about the duties on Scottish public authorities in relation to accessibility. For example, the public sector equality duty that is set out in the Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities, among other things, to
“have due regard to the need to ... advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not”.
Distinct legal obligations on transport service and infrastructure providers, including in respect of accessible information, can be found in the 2010 act and in other passenger rights legislation.
Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
A couple of weeks ago, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee took evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which told us that a lot of local authorities are not adhering to the public sector equality duty. Will you give a guarantee that you will put pressure on local authorities and transport services to adhere to that duty?
Michael Matheson
We already do. Let us not forget that it is a legal duty that they are required to meet, and it is important that we continue to press them to do so. The 2010 act is the primary piece of legislation that is responsible for ensuring that that happens.
Colin Smyth
Will the cabinet secretary clarify whether the duty is on regional transport agencies? Are they included in the list of bodies that are covered by the duty? My concern is that they are not currently covered.
Michael Matheson
Yes, they are.
Colin Smyth
All our agencies are covered by that duty.
Michael Matheson
Yes, I am advised that they are.
With that in mind, I point out that, for all the duties under the 2010 act, there are provisions for complaints and enforcement, to ensure that the duties are being appropriately adhered to. The relevant bodies must implement the duties in order to improve accessibility performance.
Although there are significant existing provisions that seek to promote and secure access to services for disabled people, we should always take the opportunity to improve matters when there is a need and when Parliament has a power to do so.
Colin Smyth’s amendments 233 and 243 seek to give powers to the Scottish ministers to make provision, by way of regulation, with respect to
“the standards and requirements”
that may be specified
“in respect of the accessibility of ... services for disabled persons and persons with limited mobility”
in a bus services improvement partnership plan or scheme, and in a franchising framework.
I note Colin Smyth’s views on the amendments and I agree that additional clarity and flexibility in that context may be useful. I therefore ask the committee to support amendments 233 and 243.
Amendment 109 from Colin Smyth, which is on accessibility of new or refurbished stopping places, seeks to amend the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 by creating a new duty on local transport authorities to ensure that new or refurbished stopping places comply with certain requirements, which are set out in proposed new sections 40B(2)(a) to 40B(2)(d) of that act. The physical location and features of bus stops are the responsibility of roads authorities, which are already bound by the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments in exercising their functions, including taking steps to avoid any disadvantage that a disabled person might suffer as a result of a physical feature. Roads authorities are also bound by the general public sector equality duty under the 2010 act. They are therefore already required to ensure that the design and location of bus stops in their area comply with those duties and take into account the needs of users more generally.
In addition, provision that is made in the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2010 ensures that all buses and coaches are made more accessible. There are approximately 4,100 buses in the Scottish fleet, of which 98 per cent are accessible or low-floor buses. Amendment 109 is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, there are a number of technical difficulties that make the legal effect of amendment 109 unclear. For example, it confers a duty on local transport authorities rather than roads authorities. It is unclear how local transport authorities could comply with the duty imposed on them, given that the powers and functions relating to bus stops are not conferred directly on them.
Although I can see that amendments 109A and 109B from Jamie Greene are intended to make the duty that would be created by amendment 109 more focused and proportionate, in my view, the duty would still be unnecessary and would still suffer from technical issues, which would make its legal effect unclear.
Amendment 250 from Colin Smyth, which relates to disability awareness training, seeks to make a further amendment to the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 by inserting a new duty on operators of local services to ensure that public service vehicle drivers receive disability awareness training annually and by requiring those operators to publish information on the steps that they have taken in making such training available. The amendment would also give local transport authorities the function of authorising providers of such training. My view is that amendment 250 is not required, as operators of local services have, since March 2018, been required by EU law to ensure that drivers receive disability awareness training. I welcome the UK Government’s commitment to publish best practice guidance during this year to assist operators in complying with that training requirement.
Amendments 250A and 250B would alter the duty that amendment 250 would create by removing the requirement for the training to be provided annually and by providing that it need be updated only when there is a substantial change in legislation relating to disability issues. Although those amendments are intended to make the duty that would be created more proportionate, I consider that amendment 250 as drafted is not required and, in any event, that it may fall outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 258 would require ministers to prepare and lay before Parliament a report about the steps that they have taken to ensure the accessibility of information about public services. In doing so, ministers would be required to consult specific bodies and set out how any recommendations would be handled. It is important to recognise the work that has already been undertaken in this field and the reporting arrangements that are already in place. As the committee will be aware, the Government has been working to improve the accessibility of information in a range of formats for passengers. For example, we have been working with the UK Government to design regulations that will require audiovisual information to be provided on buses, which is an issue that we will debate in a later group of amendments.
More broadly, the independent Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland can advise ministers on any transport accessibility issues affecting disabled people, including through its annual report, which is laid before Parliament. That means that there is already a mechanism for doing arm’s-length review of the issues. The majority of members of MACS are disabled people and it determines its own work programme. I am not persuaded that an additional reporting requirement would advance practical change. However, I am happy to draw the attention of MACS to the committee’s consideration of the issue.
For all those reasons, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 109 and 250, Jamie Greene not to move amendment 109A, 109B, 250A and 250B and Jeremy Balfour not to move amendment 258, and if they are moved, I ask the committee to reject them. That said, I also ask the committee to support amendments 233 and 243 in the name of Colin Smyth.
11:30Colin Smyth
All the amendments in the group are intended to improve accessibility on our buses through the use of BSIPs and franchises that ensure that vehicles best suit circumstances; to improve the accessibility of bus stops; and to ensure adequate, regular training for those who drive our buses. I welcome the Government’s support for amendments 233 and 243, and I will certainly be pressing them.
I am inclined not to move amendments 109 and 250, but I would be keen to have further discussions with the Government about how we tackle some of the current difficulties and ensure, for example, that drivers receive regular rather than one-off training. I appreciate the UK Government is publishing guidance on that matter. There is also the problem of new bus stops being developed that are simply not accessible and which are causing people difficulty. I am thinking of, for example, floating bus stops, where cycle lanes run between the pavement and the bus and which are a hazard to people with visual impairments. We need to find ways of strengthening the current guidance to ensure that we do not have such anomalies.
I reserve the right to bring amendments 109 and 250 back at stage 3, but I will not move them at this point in the hope that I can have discussions with the Government about a way forward.
Amendment 233 agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30—Procedures for partnership plans and schemes
The Convener
The next group is on bus services improvement partnerships: consultation on making, variation and revocation of partnership proposals. Amendment 234, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 83 to 86, 235, 87 to 94 and 236.
Jamie Greene
As this is quite a big group, I think that, in the interests of time, it will be helpful if I keep my comments to my amendments 234 to 236.
Amendment 234 relates to the definition of a “sufficient number of persons” with regard to objections to the creation of a BSIP. Recommendation 130 in the committee’s stage 1 report refers to some of the confusion around the assessment of what constitutes a sufficient number of persons objecting to such a proposal, and the Scottish Government’s response to the report says that the issue
“will be set out in regulations.”
I suspect that the cabinet secretary will say the same to me in responding to my amendments, but what I am advocating is a general definition of “sufficient number of persons” in the bill itself, along with an acknowledgment that there might be local variation. However, that variation should not allow for a definition that effectively neuters the provisions’ intended purpose of giving bus operators the opportunity to reject a BSIP that they might regard as unbalanced.
It is suggested in section 30 that a “sufficient number” might be
“all persons providing ... local services ... or ...”
a
“proportion of qualifying local services”,
but I think that that leaves things too open to interpretation. What constitutes a sufficient number should be agreed at the start of the process, and, in my view, the traffic commissioner would be best placed to decide that. If the Government does not feel the same way, I am happy for the person in question to be replaced with someone else, but that is a matter for debate.
Amendment 236 is consequential to amendment 234.
My final substantive amendment is amendment 235, which is on consultation. Section 30 will insert a new schedule A1 into the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Paragraph 9 of that schedule states that if a local authority wishes to postpone any part of a BSIP it must
“consult all operators ... who are ... likely to be affected by the postponement”,
which is fine, but it does not state that the local authority must take into account the findings of such a consultation process or that that process must include discussion of whether postponement of the local authority’s commitments should mean that a similar postponement is applied to the conditions that are imposed on operators. Amendment 235 seeks to ensure that “due regard” is paid to such consultations, which I hope would provide parity among local authorities and operators.
I move amendment 234.
Colin Smyth
As with amendment 71, which was in a previous group, amendments 83, 85, 87, 89, 91 and 93 would expand the consultation and notification processes to include people who live in the area, beyond existing service users. That would ensure that a wider group of people would be able to participate and would help to identify the challenges that prevent them from using buses at present. We need to increase the number of people who use our buses, which will require engaging with people who, for a range of reasons, might be put off using them at present.
Amendments 84, 86, 88, 90, 92 and 94 serve the same purpose as amendments 70 and 72, which were in a previous group. I have already covered the reasoning behind those amendments, so I will be brief. Amendments 84, 86, 88, 90, 92 and 94 give local transport authorities specific responsibilities for engaging with people who live in poverty, or those with relevant protected characteristics, on developing BSIPs, to ensure that plans deliver for those groups and incorporate their needs and priorities.
That covers all the amendments in my name, convener.
The Convener
No other member has asked to speak in the debate. I therefore invite the cabinet secretary to wind up.
Michael Matheson
Given the size of this group of amendments, I am afraid that my contribution will have to cover a considerable number of issues.
Amendments 234 and 236 seek to address the issue of what would constitute a sufficient number of persons who are operators of qualifying local services for the purposes of the making, varying or revoking of a BSIP scheme and who might object to such a scheme or schemes and so potentially prevent them from progressing. The powers of Scottish ministers to specify by regulation what constitutes a sufficient number of persons would be removed by amendment 236. In its place, amendment 234 would require LTAs to seek the approval of the traffic commissioner on what would constitute a sufficient number of persons.
The Scottish Government has consistently stated that the issue of what constitutes a sufficient number will be addressed in regulations and will need to reflect a wide range of possible scenarios. At this stage, it is not envisaged that the sufficient number will be specified in future regulations with reference to a specific number. Rather, it is likely to be calculated according to a formula. Further engagement and wide consultation with all interested parties, including local transport authorities and bus operators, will be undertaken on the issue to ensure that the model fits the Scottish context and takes account of the market dynamics in Scotland and the views of operators large and small.
Further, it is possible that the formula will require to be modified over time, in relation to changing market dynamics. As such, regulations are the most appropriate mechanism for specifying the way in which the number is calculated, which will allow sufficient clarity, ease of use and transparency of process.
In its stage 1 report, the committee asked me to consider carefully how such an assessment is made. Mr Greene is correct that the matter should be progressed through regulation-making powers. Those are contained in the bill and would attract the affirmative procedure, which reflects the fact that we give greater significance to the proposed approach to the issue and consider it correct that regulations on the matter should be considered and endorsed by Parliament. In light of that commitment, I ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 234 and not to move amendment 236. However, if he chooses to do so, I ask the committee to reject those amendments.
Amendment 235, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to insert a provision relating to the postponement of the coming into force of a BSIP scheme.
The provision would require LTAs to
“have due regard to ... representations”
that are made to them during the consultation process, and to
“consider whether ... any obligations on operators of local services should also be postponed”
in such circumstances.
I do not think that amendment 235 is necessary. We would expect, as a matter of good administration, that an LTA will always have due regard to all representations that are made to it during all consultation processes in the making of a BSIP. That does not need to be expressed in the bill, given that it relates to individual consultation processes.
Secondly, if a BSIP scheme is postponed, all the obligations in the scheme are also postponed. As such, amendment 235 would appear to be unnecessary, and I ask Jamie Greene not to move it. If the amendment is moved, I ask the committee to reject it.
I believe that Colin Smyth’s amendments 83 to 94 are related to his amendments 71 and 72, which were already considered in the BSIP section under the grouping on bus services improvement partnerships: content of partnership plan. Members will recall that amendments 71 and 72 seek to impose additional requirements in relation to the content and definition of, and consultation on, BSIP plans and schemes. The bill gives LTAs wide scope to set the objectives that are to be met by BSIP schemes with regard to the quality and effectiveness of services, and significant flexibility to set route and service standards in order to meet those objectives. The objectives and the associated standards may include objectives and standards that are aimed specifically at meeting the needs of those who are on low incomes and those whose ability to use local services is affected by their having a protected characteristic.
Further, the consultation and notice requirements in the bill are extensive. They require general notice of partnership proposals and/or proposals to vary plans and schemes in force in such a manner as the LTA considers appropriate in order to bring them to the notice of persons in the area, as well as specific requirements to consult organisations that represent users of local services. BSIP plans must contain details of how the LTA intends to obtain the views of users of local services on how well the plan and the scheme under it are operating.
All of that is considered to be sufficient to ensure that adequate notice is given to, and consultation is undertaken with, anybody, including those who are affected by poverty, who may be impacted by BSIP plans and schemes. Importantly, the approach that the bill takes imposes those requirements in a way that is clear and practicable.
Amendments 83 to 94 would make matters less clear, and in some instances would impose duties that are practically unachievable. In particular, amendments 84, 86, 88, 90, 92 and 94 would appear to require LTAs to give notice to or consult persons who have experience of poverty. Poverty in that context is not defined, and it would be very challenging to define it. Even if such a definition were possible, it would be simply impossible to identify, consult and give notice to every person who has that experience.
Amendments 83, 85, 87, 89, 91 and 93 would require notice to be given to, and consultation with, organisations that appear to the LTA to be representative of any person living and working in the area who is not a user of local services. Again, that is such a potentially wide and vague category that it would be very challenging, in practical terms, to discharge the obligation.
Finally, the consultation on bus services that preceded the bill’s introduction made it clear that quality partnership and quality contract schemes, which came into force almost two decades ago, were not used because they were considered to be too difficult to put in place. I do not want to repeat that experience in the context of bus services improvement partnerships.
We all have sympathy with Colin Smyth’s aims here, and I consider his intentions to be laudable, but I urge him not to move amendments 83 to 94. If they are moved, I ask the committee to reject them.
11:45Jamie Greene
I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed and in-depth response to our amendments. The luck of the draw means that I get the chance to respond. I am happy to withdraw amendment 234 and to not move amendment 236, based on the information that was given on how the approach will be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. I think that that is the right thing to do; it was perhaps not clear or understood from my reading of the bill.
However, I want to pick up a point about why I think that amendment 235 is important. As the bill stands, the part of section 30 on
“Consulting on postponing the coming into operation of partnership scheme”
simply says that
“before making a decision on whether or not to do so”
local transport authorities
“must consult all operators of local services who are ... likely to be affected”.
What would happen in the scenario that all the operators said no to the postponement, but the local authority pushed ahead? The cabinet secretary said in his comments that the Government has an expectation that due regard will be given to the responses to the consultation, but what if due regard is not given? That is why I feel that at least proposed subsection (b) in my amendment, which says that “due regard” should be given
“to any representations received by them as a result of such consultation”,
is useful and powerful. We often use that language in amendments to legislation. There is no point in consulting for consulting’s sake; due regard must be given to the outcome. If I were to not move the entire amendment, and then remove proposed subsection (c) and bring it back at stage 3 with the due regard element, perhaps it would be looked upon more favourably, so that is my intention, convener.
Amendment 234, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 83 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 83 disagreed to.
Amendment 84 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 84 disagreed to.
Amendment 85 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 85 disagreed to.
Amendment 86 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 86 disagreed to.
Amendment 235 not moved.
Amendment 87 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 87 disagreed to.
Amendment 88 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 88 disagreed to.
Amendment 89 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 89 disagreed to.
Amendment 90 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 90 disagreed to.
Amendment 91 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 91 disagreed to.
Amendment 92 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 92 disagreed to.
Amendment 93 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 93 disagreed to.
Amendment 94 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 94 disagreed to.
Amendment 236 not moved.
Section 30 agreed to.
Section 31—Registration of local services and functions of traffic commissioner
The Convener
The next group is on bus services improvement partnerships: regulations on registration of local services. Amendment 237, in the name of Neil Bibby, is grouped with amendment 238.
Neil Bibby
Scotland currently has the weakest bus laws in Britain. The Transport (Scotland) Bill gives us an opportunity to change that. As we have seen this morning, there are different opinions on the extent to which the public sector should own or operate bus services. However, with bus passenger numbers having fallen to a record low, there is surely no dispute that new regulations must be introduced to the bus market to shift power from the owners of big bus companies to passengers and communities. Amendments 237 and 238 seek to introduce new regulations to the bus market. That is, by definition, reregulation.
The origin of amendments 237 and 238 can be traced to Strathclyde Partnership for Transport’s 10-point plan. The Transport Act 1985 grants ministers regulation-making powers to bring section 6 of the act, entitled “Registration of local services”, into effect. The purpose of amendment 237 is to grant Scottish ministers an additional regulation-making power
“to limit the circumstances in which an operator may apply ... to vary or cancel a registration”.
That would allow ministers to make, in the interests of passengers, regulations to limit the power of operators to withdraw or vary services. For example, that could mean restricting the dates on which services could be varied or withdrawn, or much stricter regulation. Public transport is a public service. It should be run in the public interest, and amendment 237 seeks to re-establish that principle.
Amendment 238 would enable regulations to require an operator to make its annual accounts available to the traffic commissioner and the local transport authority. In practice, that would allow local transport authorities to determine that operators that enjoy an effective monopoly and which seek public subsidy are not seeking an excessive subsidy or engaging in anticompetitive behaviour. That would go some way towards reassuring transport authorities about the activities of bus operators. It would also address one of the other key points in SPT’s 10-point plan for bus services by guaranteeing better information for the transport authorities.
Stewart Stevenson
The commercial operators must lodge their accounts in the public domain via Companies House. Given that, is the member aware of any operator of such services that does not already publish their accounts in the public domain?
Neil Bibby
I am raising the concerns on behalf of SPT, which is concerned about its access to accounts when it wants to see how bus operators are running services. The concerns involve not only the operators’ overall accounts, but their claims about routes being profitable or unprofitable. The key question is whether claims for a subsidy are justifiable.
I move amendment 237.
Jamie Greene
Amendment 237 would
“limit the circumstances in which an operator”
can
“vary or cancel a registration”.
That is exactly what it says. My concern is that I am still a bit unsure about why the member would want to limit operators’ ability to do so, so I am minded not to support the amendment.
I have some sympathy with amendment 238. However, as Stewart Stevenson just observed, operators’ accounts are likely—if not guaranteed—to be publicly available. I question whether annual accounts would contain the information that is needed. I have no problem with making that information available to the traffic commissioner, the LTA or anyone else who sees fit to request it, so I will support the amendment, but I wonder whether it addresses in detail SPT’s concern. What information does it think is missing? What information does it not have access to? Perhaps Mr Bibby could come back with an amendment that asks specifically for that information. I do not think that annual accounts, which are macro-level things, will give the sort of information that would meet SPT’s concerns.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 237 would give ministers the power to regulate
“to limit the circumstances in which an operator may apply ... to vary or cancel a registration”.
I support that. In giving ministers that power, we have to recognise that passengers are frustrated with ever-declining bus services. There might be a need for ministers to introduce tighter regulations on when and how services can be cancelled. I appreciate that it is a complex area, so I think that it is right that the amendment does not call for anything at this point and would not put in place anything binding, but I am glad that it would enable action being taken in the future, if required.
Amendment 238 would introduce a power to make regulations on the need for operators to share their accounts. That would help to identify instances in which competition is not working as it should in an area, and in which operators are receiving excessive subsidies for delivering a service. It is a major problem that, despite the significant amount of public money that is given directly to operators, there is minimal scrutiny in areas where there is an effective monopoly. For large parts of my home region of Dumfries and Galloway, it can be impossible for the transport authority to know whether the subsidy that it is paying out is fair. Given that it is a complex subject, I agree with the approach that is taken in amendment 238.
Richard Lyle
Is Mr Bibby pushing for a private bus company to have to give information on whether it is making a profit on a given route? Annual accounts will not tell you anything about that: they will simply say what the profit was. However, individual accounts for individual routes might tell you something.
Colin Smyth
Obviously, amendment 238 is an enabling amendment. It would be for the Government to set out exactly what information should be provided. However, the big challenge is that, often, when there is a monopoly providing a subsidised service, the operator will say how much the service costs to run, but the profit margin will be a mystery. We can guess it, but we do not know it. Sometimes, profits are excessive. The lack of information for regional transport partnerships and local authorities makes assessing whether they are getting value for money from subsidising services incredibly challenging.
12:00John Finnie
I support amendments 237 and 238 for the reasons that have been outlined, which are about public accountability. First and foremost, considerable misunderstanding remains about public sector involvement in bus services—it is not as extensive as many people imagine it to be. However, when the public sector is involved and is subsidising routes, it should be clear when profits are excessive.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 237, in Neil Bibby’s name, would add to the amendments that section 31 of the bill makes to section 6 of the 1985 act. The amendment would enable regulations that were made under section 6(9) of the 1985 act to make provision
“to limit the circumstances in which an operator”
can
“vary or cancel a registration”
of a service.
That would be unworkable in the context of the existing registration scheme, the traffic commissioner’s role and the legislative landscape that underpins those elements. The amendment is also unnecessary because operators are already required to give 28 days’ notice of any proposal to vary or change a registration, which ensures that local authorities and RTPs that would be affected by such changes can take steps to address effects on service provision.
Amendment 238 would require bus operators to make annual accounts available to the traffic commissioner and LTAs
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
The amendment’s purpose is not entirely clear. Operators are already required to satisfy the traffic commissioner that they have appropriate financial standing by reference to audited annual accounts, as part of the public service vehicle licensing regime. Like all commercial companies, bus operators publish consolidated annual accounts as a matter of course, and amendment 238 would add little to that requirement. The amendment relates to publication of annual accounts, not to accounts that relate to individual routes.
I ask Neil Bibby to seek to withdraw amendment 237 and not to move amendment 238. If the amendments are pressed to a vote, I ask the committee to reject them.
Neil Bibby
I referred earlier to the 10-point plan from SPT—the largest regional transport authority in Scotland. It launched its 10-point plan several years ago to stimulate debate about bus services and to influence changes in national policy. My intention, and that of SPT, is to deliver a high standard of service to passengers. I recognise the role of the public sector, but it is restricted because of underfunding and deregulation. SPT and I believe that the proposed approach would allow us to introduce in the bus market new regulations that would rebalance power away from bus companies and towards passengers, communities and democratically elected local authorities. For those reasons, I will press amendments 237 and 238.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 237 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 237 disagreed to.
Amendment 238 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 238 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 238 disagreed to.
The Convener
The next group is on bus services improvement partnerships: traffic commissioner powers to scrutinise. Amendment 95, in the cabinet secretary’s name, is the only amendment in the group.
Michael Matheson
In its stage 1 report, the committee said that
“the enforcement of compliance with BSIPs may lack balance as the Traffic Commissioner will have jurisdiction to enforce the operators’ commitments but not those of local authorities”
and that
“for a partnership to be truly effective, a level playing field should apply insofar as is possible.”
To this end, I have lodged amendment 95 to ensure that the traffic commissioner can
“investigate the actions of the local transport authority”
in relation to the exercise of its duties in a bus services improvement partnership, prepare and publish a report on the investigation and make appropriate recommendations in circumstances where the commissioner finds that the LTA is not complying with its obligations under the bus services improvement partnership.
I move amendment 95.
Amendment 95 agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Section 32—Franchising arrangements for local services
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on the content of the franchising framework and the franchise agreement. Amendment 213, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 96, 214, 239 and 240.
Jamie Greene
I know that it has been a long morning, but I hope that members will bear with me, because these are largely quite technical amendments. Amendment 213 is quite self-explanatory. It requires that
“A franchising framework must include provision on how disputes”
between the local transport authority and the service operator can be resolved, which is fairly standard practice in most commercial contracts of that nature. It is normal to predetermine dispute resolution mechanisms, and I hope that the minister will look favourably on that addition.
Amendment 214 is important, given how expensive it is to operate a franchise and the pressure that doing so will put on local authorities that wish to pursue such a model. We talked a lot about that when we took evidence at stage 1. The bill already states that local authorities must
“set out their analysis of the financial implications for them of making the proposed framework”.
My amendments would go a little bit further and add some specific detail to that, including by requiring an assessment of the costs of establishing and running a service, the projected profitability—or lack of it, as the case may be—and, importantly, a comparative analysis of how the proposed framework would impact on the current funding of services. By that, I mean that, if local authorities are already subsidising services through other mechanisms, they will need to analyse the impact of making the move to a different model and moving funds from that subsidy to the operation of a new service. The intention of amendment 214 is to ensure that the financial assessment has been performed to the highest possible standard and published. I am keen to hear some thoughts on that.
Amendment 239 states that the auditor of the franchise should be appointed by the traffic commissioner. Given that local authorities, by their very nature, can be political, I think that an authority that has begun the process of introducing a franchise should not be the body that appoints an auditor of the process. Neutrality is absolutely essential in what could be a contentious environment. The appointment of the auditor should fall to the traffic commissioner, as the commissioner’s role is an independent and highly regarded one. That would mirror the bill’s provision that the commissioner will appoint a panel to consider the final franchise proposal. The commissioner should also consider who the auditor should be, and that is the point of amendment 239.
Finally, amendment 240 goes back to the issue of postponement. We said that there is no clear guidance as to whether an authority has to pay due regard to the consultation process. I think that any operator, be they the winner of a franchise or not, would need to adjust at short notice to the postponement or variation of a franchise if they had already made significant capital investment in such. Unlike within a partnership agreement, the imposition of a franchise could mean an operator having to make significant changes to its business, and a successful bidder may have invested considerable resource. Such decisions could not be wound back by an operator, and the operator would be left with the costs. Amendment 240 makes it clear that, if a local transport authority decides to postpone or vary a franchise framework, there should be sensible consultation on whether or how the authority might seek to
“compensate operators for any losses ... as a result of the postponement.”
I move amendment 213.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 96 serves the same purpose as my amendments that have already been debated in previous groups but with regard to the BSIP. It would require consultation with those who live in poverty and those with relevant protected characteristics as part of the delivery of the franchise—which is an area of tackling those issues in which the bill currently falls very short.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 213 seeks to add a new section 13A(3) to the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, with a requirement that
“A franchising framework must include provision on how disputes between the local transport authority and a person operating local services in the area”
of
“the framework ... are to be resolved.”
However, it is not clear what type of disputes the provision is intended to capture. Further, as it is the franchise agreement that creates the contractual relationship between the LTA and an operator of a local service under a franchise, that is where it would be more appropriate to include dispute resolution to address the matter. LTAs would be required to keep the franchise framework under review, and complaints from operators—whether or not they are franchisees—and anyone else, such as bus users, should form part of that review. I therefore ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 213. If the amendment is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.
Amendment 96, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeks to require an LTA to place mandatory conditions on how the needs of certain persons will be provided for in the contractual franchising agreement with the operator that is providing a franchise service. That is similar to amendment 70, which was considered in an earlier grouping, although that amendment related to the BSIP model. However, I believe that the franchising process, like the BSIP, would address that issue better at a far earlier stage.
The franchising process is deliberately a very thorough exercise of development, assessment, audit, consultation and application for approval. Proper analysis of the needs of local bus users would be considered a key part of any engagement process at an early stage in developing such a proposal. That analysis would include consideration of the needs of persons with low income—whose income would be adversely affected, whose expenditure would be increased or whose experience or ability to use local services would likely be affected because they had one or more of the protected characteristics—long before the point of agreements being entered into. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 96. If it is moved, I ask the committee to reject it.
Amendment 214, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to add to proposed new section 13E(2) of the 2001 act a requirement that the financial assessment that is carried out by the LTA on the proposed franchising framework should include certain specific information that we would expect to be in a financial assessment. As part of the implementation of the bill, the Scottish ministers must issue guidance on the assessment of a proposed franchise framework. That guidance will be extremely detailed and will cover the things that the amendment suggests. It is important that we do that in guidance rather than by a firm rule in the bill, as the guidance will be developed with stakeholder engagement and will allow for adaptability as practice develops. I therefore ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 214.
Amendment 239, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to amend proposed new section 13F(2) of the 2001 act, inserting in section 32 of the bill a provision to the effect that the traffic commissioner, instead of the local transport authority, would appoint or obtain a report from an auditor on the financial aspects of the assessment of a proposed franchise framework. Auditors are a regulated profession, and legislation contains detailed provision on statutory audits and their obligations. Additionally, it is the LTA, not the traffic commissioner, that will be required to consider the report of the auditor, to determine whether it is to proceed with the proposed franchise framework. The proposal in amendment 239 would therefore represent a further unnecessary stage for anyone who was considering franchising.
The bill’s provisions are already robust, and I do not see the need to make the process any more difficult than is necessary. The amendment would also have financial and resource implications for the traffic commissioner that have not been considered or discussed with the UK Government, which funds the commissioner’s function. Therefore, I ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 239. If he moves it, I ask the committee to reject it.
12:15Amendment 240, in the name of Jamie Greene, would require an LTA that sought to postpone the commencement or variation of a franchising framework to consult operators of local services that were likely to be affected on how those operators should be compensated. There is already a requirement on an LTA to consult operators of local services that would likely be affected if the LTA is considering postponing the coming into operation of a franchise framework or a variation to an existing framework. Adding a requirement to consult on proposals for the compensation of operators would create nothing more than a consultation duty while creating an expectation that operators would be entitled to something for which there was no basis. Postponement can be for only up to 12 months, so the effect on operators can last only for a finite time, and the Scottish ministers have the power to amend that period should practice show that it is unsuitable.
Franchising is a big and potentially costly intervention in the bus market, and it will have taken a very long time to get the process to such a stage. It is vital that we give LTAs the opportunity to deliver it properly, with reasonable postponement where necessary. The obligation in the bill to consult operators who might be affected is adequate to cover all scenarios without adding the undue burden on LTAs of a requirement to consider compensation, thereby creating an unrealistic expectation for operators. I therefore ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 240. If he moves it, I ask members to reject it.
Jamie Greene
I take on board the cabinet secretary’s point about amendment 213.
On amendment 214—as with many amendments that I have lodged—the minister’s response is that all this will be dealt with in the guidance, which needs to be flexible. That is all well and good, but the additions that would be made by amendment 214 are a sensible foundation for the guidance. At what point would it be appropriate for those matters not to be included in the assessment of financial implications? I appreciate that the minister wants flexibility to change the guidance as he sees fit, but amendment 214 sets out the basics that should be included—they are not onerous requirements, and they might be in the assessment anyway. My proposed approach would underpin their being in the assessment.
I heard and appreciate what the minister said about amendment 239, but I do not think that my question about who will appoint the auditor has been answered. It remains unclear whether the local transport authority or another body will do that.
I take the cabinet secretary’s point about amendment 240, and I will not move it.
Amendment 213, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 96 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 96 disagreed to.
Amendments 214 and 239 not moved.
The Convener
I am trying to work out the timings, and I think that there would be some benefit in our pushing on slightly, so that Neil Bibby and Jeremy Balfour do not have to come back to move their amendments when we resume the meeting this evening. I realise that that might put us under some pressure, but I ask for a wee bit of flexibility to see how far we can go.
Let us push on with the next group, which is on minor, technical amendments. Amendment 97, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 99, 100 and 101. If amendment 215, which will be debated in the next group, is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 99, 100 and 101.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 97, 99, 100 and 101 are minor in nature and seek to correct terminology that is used in section 32. Amendments 97 and 100 will replace “franchising” with “franchise” in new sections 13L(2) and 13R(2)(a) of the 2001 act, while amendments 99 and 101 seek to amend the reference to “a franchising agreement” in subsections (1) and (2) of new section 13R of the 2001 act, which is not quite correct.
I move amendment 97.
Amendment 97 agreed to.
Amendment 240 not moved.
Amendment 98 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on franchising by multi-authorities and regional transport partnerships. Amendment 215, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendment 241. If amendment 215 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 99, 100 and 101, because of pre-emption.
Jamie Greene
Thankfully, there is only one amendment in my name for me to speak to. Amendment 215 seeks to add a new section on multi-authority franchising. At the moment, the bill allows multi-authority franchising that involves two or more local authorities. I have copied and pasted the wording of proposed new section 13R of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and have simply added to it “a Regional Transport Partnership” and “the Scottish Ministers.”
Members are probably asking themselves why I have done that. I want to expand the proposed power. Colin Smyth’s amendment 241 would also allow regional transport partnerships to create franchises, which I think is sensible. I would take that proposal a step further and provide more flexibility. There could be a large number of variations in how local authorities and regional transport partnerships coalesce around the setting up of a franchise. There might be technical reasons why that is not possible or helpful; I am sure that the cabinet secretary will inform me of any such reasons.
I will provide a practical example. At the moment, it takes three and a half hours to get from Ardrossan to Edinburgh by bus. The journey involves three separate bus operators and requires two changes. I hope that amendment 215 would, if no private commercial operator wanted to run a direct service between Ardrossan and Edinburgh—a direct service is available between Greenock and Edinburgh—allow North Ayrshire Council, SPT and the City of Edinburgh Council jointly to set up, fund and operate the route as a franchise, if the bill will not currently provide such a power. I am keen to hear feedback on whether my amendment would be helpful or cumbersome.
I move amendment 215.
Colin Smyth
My amendment 241 would allow all regional transport partnerships to run franchises, as opposed to just allowing model 3 RTPs to do so, which is what the bill allows. That would serve two purposes. On a practical level, amendment 241 was intended to complement my amendment that sought to lift the ban on councils running bus services. Some people have argued that there could, in that scenario, be a conflict of interests in respect of councils competing for franchises that they are tendering. I believe that amendment 241 would be one way of avoiding that, although I question the extent to which the potential exists for such a conflict of interests. My amendment would allow an RTP to award a franchise in the same way that model 3 RTPs can subsidise services.
More broadly, amendment 241 aims to facilitate a more regional approach to transport. Transport always requires co-operation across local authority borders, and there will be instances in which it is more appropriate for a franchise to be run at regional level. However, as things stand, only three RTPs—SPT, south west of Scotland transport partnership and Zetland transport partnership—will have the power to do that.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 215 also deals with the role of regional transport partnerships in franchises. I am not sure about the role of ministers that he proposes, nor I am sure whether it is necessary for multiple RTPs to have the power to act jointly, but I will listen to what other members have to say. The key thing is that we should give all RTPs the power to award and run franchises.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 215, in the name of Jamie Greene, and amendment 241, in the name of Colin Smyth, seek to include regional transport partnerships alongside local transport authorities as parties that are able to act jointly to make a franchise framework and franchise agreement. Amendment 215 also seeks to extend that to include the Scottish ministers.
I agree with what I think is the principle behind the amendments—that where relevant local authorities deem it appropriate, powers should be available to the relevant RTPs. However, the amendments are not necessary or appropriate. Scottish ministers have existing powers to transfer any function that they consider appropriate to RTPs by an order made under section 10 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. The bill goes even further to make that clear, and will specifically amend the list of functions in section 10 of that act to include the new franchising function. That will allow the Scottish ministers to do so as and when appropriate, and by following the procedure of making a statutory instrument that would be laid in the Scottish Parliament.
The bill, as a whole, has been drafted to ensure that it is future-proofed for consideration in the review of the national transport strategy that is ongoing around transport governance. It does not attempt to pre-empt that consideration. I add that there is no role for Scottish ministers in local services franchising. That is a local matter that is designed to address local bus needs, which will appropriately be delivered by local transport authorities. It is also important to ensure that the decision panel’s role is decisive.
Scottish ministers will engage with all stakeholders on producing guidance and regulations to support the franchising process in order to ensure that it is open, fair and transparent. However, as such, they cannot be said to be impartial in relation to the production of a framework, nor should they enter into specific agreements.
With that in mind, I ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 215, and I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 214. If the committee is asked to vote on them, I ask it to reject them.
Jamie Greene
I am still a bit confused about whether a local authority and the regional transport partnership could create a franchise and operate a service together under existing legislation. Would that require that changes be made to the powers that they have, via statutory instrument? If that is the case, why not just put it in the bill now and be done with it? The cabinet secretary’s response might help me to decide whether to press amendment 215.
Michael Matheson
That will depend on the circumstances. It might be that SPT, for example, would require such authority, but in other instances the requirement might not apply. There is no clear and specific answer to that question.
Jamie Greene
Okay. That is clearish. In that case, I will press my amendment.
The Convener
I remind members that, if amendment 215 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 99, 100 and 101.
The question is, that amendment 215 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is, For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 215 disagreed to.
Amendments 99 to 101 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 241 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 241 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is, For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 241 disagreed to.
Amendment 242 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 242 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is, For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 242 disagreed to.
12:30Amendment 102 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 102 disagreed to.
Amendment 243 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Section 33—Provision of service information when varying or cancelling registration
The Convener
The next group is on the provision of information about local services. Amendment 244, in the name of Neil Bibby, is grouped with amendments 103 to 106, 245, 107, 108, 246, 247 and 173.
Neil Bibby
I will try to keep my comments brief. I wish to speak to amendments 244 and 246, which are in my name, and to comment briefly on the other amendments in the group.
The purpose of amendment 244 is to clarify that bus operators must share information on patronage and revenues with the local transport authority. As it stands, section 33 requires operators to share
“information relating to ... the number of passengers using the service, the journeys made ... the fares paid ... and ... the revenue obtained”.
I want to test the adequacy of the term “relating to”. My amendment 244 would require operators to share information “setting out” passenger numbers, bus journeys, fares and revenues. That clearer and more precise wording could help to clarify what requirements will be placed on operators. Nonetheless, I will listen to the minister’s explanation about the language that has been used in the bill.
Amendment 246 is more substantial. It would place a duty on local authorities to notify the traffic commissioner about a change to a bus route or a significant change to timetabling. It also sets out how the traffic commissioner should respond to such a notification, which includes establishing a panel of three to determine whether to approve the change. It would require the panel to consult the transport authority, bus operators and, most important, bus users. The amendment would not only shift power from bus operators back to the community, but would guarantee passengers a say in significant changes to local services.
The committee will note that amendment 247, in the name of Colin Smyth, would have a similar effect: it would establish a statutory duty to consult about changes to bus routes and timetabling.
The bill represents a significant opportunity to give a voice to bus passengers. That is the purpose of my amendments, and I encourage committee members to support them.
The amendments in the name of the cabinet secretary appear to be largely practical, and are either technical or consequential in nature.
There is a concern that it appears that Jamie Greene’s amendment 245 would place restrictions on information sharing that are unnecessary and not consistent with the spirit of the bill. However, I am sure that committee members will listen to Jamie Greene’s explanation about the amendment, and will consider the case that he makes.
I ask the committee to consider my amendments, which would bring democracy and accountability to public transport, and would enhance the power and position of passengers.
I move amendment 244.
Michael Matheson
The effect of amendment 244 would be to narrow the power that, at present, covers information relating to the matters that are referred to in subsection (3) of proposed new section 6ZA of the Transport Act 1985, so that it would cover only information “setting out” the matters referred to in that subsection. “Setting out” could be read, for example, as referring only to aggregate patronage figures, whereas information “relating to” patronage could be considered to include data on concessionaires and other broader demographic information that would, likely, be more useful.
The bill strikes the right balance by ensuring that requests are not too onerous for operators to provide, while giving sufficient flexibility, through regulation-making powers, to ensure that local authorities can get the details that they require in order to make informed decisions about the effect of variation or cancellation, and bout the steps that might be required to address effects on service provision in their area. The consultation requirements that apply to the power to make regulations under subsection (3) of proposed new section 6ZA of the Transport Act 1985 add a level of protection to ensure that that balance is achieved.
Government amendments 103, 104 and 105 are technical amendments to subsections (2) and (3) of proposed new section 6ZB of the Transport Act 1985. The subsections make provision for affected authorities to disclose information that is received from a bus operator that proposes to cancel or vary a registered local bus service to specified persons,
“in connection with an invitation”
to tender to provide a supplementary or replacement service. The amendments will ensure that the disclosure provisions work effectively, regardless of which procurement procedure the affected authority chooses to use.
Government amendment 106 is consequential on section 43 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, and will resolve a potential conflict in how the provisions about disclosure of information that is requested under section 43 would operate, where the information is provided together with information that is requested under proposed new section 6ZA of the Transport Act 1985.
Government amendment 108 relates to the provisions that are to be added to the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to allow the Scottish ministers to make regulations requiring bus operators, local transport authorities and the traffic commissioner to share with specified people certain information on routes, timetables, fares, tickets and the operation of services. Amendment 108 provides for the regulations to specify “the Secretary of State” as a person who may receive specific information. That will allow the Scottish ministers to ensure that information that is required for effective operation of the UK-wide bus-information system—the national public transport access nodes, or NaPTAN—is shared with the UK Government, which administers the scheme. The information that is to be shared will be set out in regulations.
Amendment 245, in the name of Jamie Greene, would restrict to information from the past two years the information that operators can be required, under regulations, to provide about past operation of their services. It is understandable that, in order to reduce the burden on information providers, requests for past information should not span an unreasonable time. However, given the range of circumstances in which information might be required, I do not consider it to be practical or appropriate to set an arbitrary time limit in primary legislation.
Regulations requiring provision of information can be laid before Parliament only after the consultation requirements in proposed new section 35A(8) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which will be inserted by section 34 of the bill, have been complied with. There will therefore be full engagement with bus operators before the precise scope and nature of the information that they will be required to share is determined. The regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure, so there will be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the requirement.
Amendment 107, in the name of Colin Smyth, would provide for regulations made under proposed new section 35A of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to require information
“to be ... made available in ... accessible form (including in audible form)”
and Braille. It is not clear whether Mr Smyth intends that the regulations should be able to compel operators to make such information available to the end users—that is, passengers. If that is his intention, I think that amendment 107 will not have the desired effect.
More fundamental is that the secretary of state already has a power, under section 181A of the Equality Act 2010, to make regulations to require operators of local services in Scotland to make information available to persons travelling on those services
“for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons”.
It would be outwith the competence of this Parliament to confer a power of a similar nature on the Scottish ministers.
However, my officials have been liaising with Department for Transport officials on how the accessible information regulations should be designed, in so far as they relate to Scotland and to supported consultation and engagement activities with Scottish stakeholders. That is in addition to the formal consultation response that Scottish ministers issued to the DFT on the subject.
Amendment 246, in the name of Neil Bibby, would impose a requirement on LTAs to notify the traffic commissioner about a proposed change to a bus route or a substantial timetable change. It would also require such changes to be considered by a panel to be appointed by the traffic commissioner.
Operators are already obliged to apply to the traffic commissioner to make changes to a registered service. The number of registered applications of all kinds over six weeks from April to May was 254. The number of routes and timetable changes that would need to be notified and considered under amendment 246 could therefore give rise to a significant administrative burden on LTAs and on the traffic commissioner and operators.
John Finnie
The cabinet secretary quoted a number of statistics; is it likely that there would be fewer such alterations, many of which cause disruption, if this regime were in place?
Michael Matheson
That does not necessarily follow. The issue is likely to be that those who are required to consider applications would have to undertake a significant amount of work to consider any application for a change in registration, which is a fundamental point about this amendment. For example, the traffic commissioner would have to consider the resource implications because it would be such a significant increase in their workload. Another issue that has not been given consideration is the fact that the commissioner is funded by the UK Government in supporting and discharging their function.
I believe that such provision is also unnecessary, as operators are already required to give 28 days’ notice to an affected authority of proposals to change or vary a registered service. That allows authorities to assess the changes and the impact on local bus planning. It provides an opportunity for discussion with operators and other stakeholders and for authorities to take steps to address any effect on service provision in their area by, for example, using existing powers to secure the provision of services that are required to address unmet transport needs in their area. The bill will expand the options available in such circumstances by making provision for local authorities to run services, for example.
There are also a number of technical issues with the amendment, which mean that its legal effect is unclear. For example, proposed new subsection (4) provides that
“The panel may decide ... not to approve the proposed change of route or timetabling”,
but no provision is made as to the effect of such a decision. In addition, amendment 246 would place those new requirements affecting the operation of the system of local service registration in proposed new section 35B of the 2001 act, but the legislative provisions underpinning the registration system are found in sections 6 to 9 of the Transport Act 1985. It is for those reasons that I believe that the amendments are not necessary or appropriate.
Colin Smyth’s amendment 247 would impose a duty on operators to consult local transport authorities, bus passengers and other relevant parties about changes to bus routes or timetabling. Changes of the type that amendment 247 refers to would require an operator to apply to vary the registered service. Operators are already required to notify LTAs of a proposal to vary a registered service under the Public Service Vehicles (Registration of Local Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2001. That ensures early communication between the operator and the LTA, allowing all available options to be explored. I therefore believe that amendment 247 is not necessary or appropriate.
Amendment 173 makes a technical adjustment to section 135 of the Transport Act 1985, resolving a potential overlap in the consultation requirements that apply when the Scottish ministers propose to make regulations under new sections 6ZA and 6ZC of that act. The remaining amendments are minor in nature, providing further clarification to the bill. I ask Neil Bibby not to press amendment 244 and not to move 246; I ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 245; and I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 107 and 247. If the amendments are moved or pressed, I ask the committee to reject them.
Jamie Greene
I agree whole-heartedly with the cabinet secretary’s comments and I will not move amendment 245.
Colin Smyth
I hope that Jamie Greene meant that he agreed with the cabinet secretary only in relation to his amendment—I am sure that he will fully support amendment 107, in my name, which would require public service information to be made available in accessible formats. The amendment relates to information that is provided to the public rather than the information that is shared under the specific provisions in this section, but the legislation team advised that it would have the effect of delivering the changes that I am seeking.
Disabled people who are in some way prevented from driving often rely on public transport to get around but they can face significant barriers in accessing public transport. One key example is the ability to access basic information such as timetables. Without that information, some people will be prevented from using public transport, which in turn limits their ability to access any other services or opportunities that they need public transport to get to.
The amendment provides for information to be made available to the public in accessible formats such as large font, audible and Braille. It does not require every operator to have every piece of information that it publishes automatically translated into every possible format—information should simply be available as needed and requested. That would ensure that deaf and visually impaired people can access the same basic information that most people take for granted.
12:45I am aware—I think that the cabinet secretary touched on this—that provisions in the Bus Services Act 2017 with regard to information for bus passengers have now been implemented. However, as I understand it, those provisions relate primarily to information that is available during a journey rather than prior to it, which is what this amendment addresses.
The cabinet secretary also indicated that officials were liaising with the UK Government on accessible information, but he gave no information about what they were asking for, and the Scottish Government’s position on the matter is not clear. If somebody who has a disability needs information on a bus timetable in Braille or in audible format, there should be an obligation to provide that, as it is a basic right. Amendment 107, in my name, seeks to achieve that.
Stewart Stevenson
I note that 28 languages are spoken in Peterhead academy. Would the amendment require the school to provide information in an accessible format—in other words, in another language—given that not all those speakers of different languages can speak English?
Colin Smyth
Amendment 107 refers directly to people who have a particular disability and who require, for example, information in Braille or audible format. However, if Mr Stevenson wanted to lodge another amendment at stage 3 to provide support for the residents of Peterhead, that would be worth considering.
Amendment 247 would require bus operators to consult on any changes to bus routes. As it stands, operators have to consult only on changes to subsidised routes. When they change commercial services, they have only to notify the traffic commissioner for Scotland. That means that the public do not get advance notice or an opportunity to respond to changes to vital services, purely because those are commercial routes.
It is simply not the case that when a bus operator informs the authorities—I think that the cabinet secretary used that phrase—the public will automatically know that a change is taking place. Too often, people find out about a change to a bus service when they pick up a timetable and discover that their commercial bus service has been axed in a particular area. They have no say whatsoever on what the route change should be. Amendment 247 would change that. There are too many instances in which the first passengers know of a change is when the bus simply does not arrive.
Some bus companies carry out consultation, but they do so in an ad hoc way and the quality is varied. Every single member in the Parliament will receive complaints about the issue, and we have an opportunity to tackle it as the Transport (Scotland) Bill goes through. Authorities may be told in advance about a change, but that is not the same as informing passengers.
Amendment 246, in the name of Neil Bibby, likewise seeks to strengthen bus operators’ responsibilities in that regard and sets out a specific process for how to do so. I am happy to support either approach, depending on which one the committee prefers. We need to start to put in place the principle of proper consultation if we are going to fully support and encourage people to use our bus services.
The Convener
I ask Neil Bibby to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 244.
Neil Bibby
As I indicated, the purpose of amendment 244 is to clarify the requirement that we place on operators to share information and consider whether it could be strengthened. Having reflected on the cabinet secretary’s comments, I will not press amendment 244.
However, amendment 246 represents more than just a duty to notify the traffic commissioner about changes to a bus route or a major change to timetabling. It would require consultation with operators and bus users and would allow a panel to reject a change to a registered service. I believe that it would help to rebalance the power in the bus market. For those reasons, I will move amendment 246, and I hope that members will also consider supporting Colin Smyth’s amendments.
Amendment 244, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 103 to 106 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Section 34—Provision of information about bus services
Amendment 245 not moved.
Amendment 107 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 107 disagreed to.
Amendment 108 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 246 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 246 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 246 disagreed to.
Amendment 247 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 247 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 247 disagreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
After section 34
Amendment 109 not moved.
The Convener
We have the opportunity to move on. There is only one amendment in the next group. If we debated it and moved to a vote on it very quickly, that would take us to the end of the groups on bus services, which would be a natural break, as the following groups are on smart ticketing. That being the case, I propose that we push on.
Mike Rumbles
I object, convener. You are drawing an artificial line. We should be able to concentrate properly on the amendments. We have been going for nearly five hours, which is not a good system for making law.
The Convener
If you want me to pull the plug there, I am happy to do so.
We will meet back here at 6 o’clock this evening to continue our consideration of amendments. I thank members for their attention and for the good progress that we have made.
12:53 Meeting suspended.18:05 On resuming—
The Convener
Good evening and welcome to the second part of the committee’s 20th meeting in 2019, which is turning into quite a marathon session. I ask people to ensure that mobile phones are on silent.
We will continue with agenda item 2, which is consideration of stage 2 amendments on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I welcome back the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and his officials. Lots of non-committee members are present, who I welcome without naming them all. We begin with amendment 110, in the name of Colin Smyth, which is in a group on its own.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 110 would require the Government to regulate to create a quality assurance framework for bus operators. The issue emerged in evidence to the committee and our stage 1 report called for the Government to look at it to help to raise standards and drive improvement in the passenger experience. A number of stakeholders have raised concerns that the bill does very little to address the challenges around patronage. A robust national quality assurance framework to drive up standards could make a real difference to bus use, and a nationally consistent approach would help to identify and address problems in the sector, whether with a particular area, operator or aspect of the service.
The amendment calls for the framework to be set out in regulations following consultation. Although ScotRail’s responsibilities in that regard are set out on a contractual rather than a legislative basis, such an approach for buses would create an inconsistent national picture and would fail to capture commercial services. Regulations are more robust, while being relatively easy to update as needed.
I move amendment 110.
Jamie Greene
Can Mr Smyth explain, perhaps in summing up, how the national quality assurance framework differs from the franchise framework? Will the targets therein be separate, intertwined or replicated?
The Convener
I am sure that he can. No-one else wishes to speak, so I call the cabinet secretary.
Michael Matheson
Colin Smyth’s amendment 110 seeks to place a duty on the Scottish ministers to establish a national bus quality assurance framework and to set out how that framework will help to improve local services and users’ experience of those services.
The fundamental aim of the options that are presented in the bill, particularly the BSIPs and franchising, is to improve the quality of Scotland’s bus services. The intention is that they will meet that aim through joint working between local transport authorities and bus operators and by taking account of the interventions that are required to meet different local needs. That approach is considered to be the most effective in the deregulated bus market.
BSIPs and any franchising arrangements that local transport authorities decide to put in place have provisions for monitoring performance. Scotland-wide measures are already in place, through the Scottish Government-funded Bus Users Scotland, to monitor bus operators’ compliance with existing legislative requirements, to check that bus services are running where and when they should be and to work with bus operators to act on complaints and share best practice. Further, the traffic commissioner has powers to investigate complaints and impose sanctions on operators that fail to run their registered services in accordance with required standards.
As such, although I completely share the aim of improving the standards of bus services in Scotland, I do not consider that establishing a national quality assurance framework for operators of local services would be an effective or appropriate means of improving those services’ standards.
I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 110; if it is pressed, I urge the committee to reject it.
Colin Smyth
Two substantive points have been raised. Jamie Greene asked how a national framework would differ from any guidance in BSIPs or franchises. A national framework would cover all services—commercial and those covered by franchises or BSIPs—but the framework for BSIPs and franchises covers only services that are within the franchise or the BSIP. At this time, we have no idea whether there will be any franchises, never mind how many services they would cover. In the absence of a franchise, this amendment would at least provide for a national framework.
The cabinet secretary pointed out that there are existing provisions, but we all know that they simply do not go far enough. Indeed, that was the committee’s view in our stage 1 report. We asked the cabinet secretary and the Government to look at the matter.
The cabinet secretary made the point that people can complain to the traffic commissioner if a standard is not met. The reality is that, if the standard does not exist, there is nothing to complain about.
Amendment 110 looks to introduce a national framework to drive up standards across the sector and I will press it.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 110 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstention
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 110 disagreed to.
Amendment 248 moved—[Colin Smyth].
Amendment 248A moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 248A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 248A disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 248 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 248 disagreed to.
Amendments 249 and 250 not moved.
Amendment 258 not moved.
Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.
Section 37—National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board
The Convener
The next group is on smart ticketing, in particular, the functions and membership of the national smart ticketing advisory board. Amendment 111, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 112, 251, 283 and 113.
18:15Colin Smyth
Amendment 111 would add a reference to
“the development of a national smart ticketing scheme”
to the remit of the national smart ticketing advisory board. Improving smart ticketing capability is critical to encouraging public transport use and, in particular, to starting to halt the decline in bus patronage.
I welcome the decision to set up the board, but what is proposed falls far short of the Government’s previous plans for a single, national multimodal smart card. Indeed, in his response to the committee’s stage 1 report, the cabinet secretary appeared to confirm that such a card is no longer being developed.
It is not enough just to expand the use of contactless and smart-card technology. We should be working to deliver the joined-up ticketing system that customers want, which would allow someone to buy a single ticket for a journey that was run by multiple bus operators—indeed, on multiple modes of transport.
I appreciate the significant technical challenges in that regard, particularly in relation to distributing fare revenue. Nevertheless, we should be working towards national smart ticketing in the long term. Amendment 111 would simply add to the board’s remit, to make it clear that one of its aims should be to look at the issue.
As the bill stands, it is difficult to know what the advisory board’s aim is in that regard. The bill offers no leadership or direction on that role and simply says that a smart ticketing advisory board is being set up to look at smart ticketing. That shows a lack of ambition.
I move amendment 111.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 111, 112, 251 and 283 relate to the functions and membership of the national smart ticketing advisory board.
On the board’s functions, I recognise that in its stage 1 report the committee said:
“the Committee considers that the remit of the Advisory Board should be widened to include a responsibility to bring forward proposals for a single ticketing scheme to apply across all modes of public transport in Scotland”.
As we said in our response to the report, the Scottish Government does not believe that the significant restructuring of the market and considerable cost to the public purse that would be required to create a national scheme are justified, so it would not be appropriate to give the board such a responsibility.
However, I consider that the national smart ticketing advisory board is well placed to provide the Scottish ministers with advice and recommendations about the future strategic development of smart ticketing across Scotland.
Amendment 111 and Government amendment 112 both seek to address the strategic aspect of the board’s role. Amendment 111, from Colin Smyth, seeks to enable the board to advise the Scottish ministers on any proposals for the development of a national ticketing system. In my view, that would unduly constrain the scope of the board’s strategic role and the options that it might wish to pursue in connection with the future strategic development of smart ticketing, which might or might not include proposals for a national scheme.
There are also a number of technical issues that mean that the legal effect of amendment 111 is unclear. For example, the amendment would tie this new aspect of the board’s role into its existing remit of providing advice in the context of the Scottish ministers’ functions in relation to smart ticketing arrangements. The Scottish ministers do not have any functions in relation to the development of proposals for a national ticketing scheme, and nothing in the bill would enable the creation of such a scheme.
By contrast, Government amendment 112 will give the board a standalone function of providing advice and recommendations on the strategic development of smart ticketing in Scotland. That will ensure that the board has the freedom to look at all options—national or otherwise—and to make recommendations as to how options might be progressed.
I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 111. If he presses the amendment, I urge the committee to reject it.
The board’s membership will be provided for in regulations made under proposed new section 27C(3) of the Transport Act 2001. Amendments 251 and 283 seek to impose requirements in relation to regulations about membership. Amendment 251, from Colin Smyth, would require the regulations to make provision to ensure that membership of the board includes representation of people who have disabilities arising from physical or mental impairment.
Until those regulations are made, it is not clear what the process for appointing members of the board will be or indeed what the composition of the board should be. However, proposed new section 27C(4) of the 2001 act will oblige the Scottish ministers to consult certain categories of person before making the regulations. The issues will therefore be considered in detail with relevant stakeholders, including the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, as part of the process. That will ensure that ministers are well informed as to how best to ensure that people with a disability are appropriately represented on the board.
It is also worth noting that, in making such regulations, the Scottish ministers will be subject to the public sector equality duty that is set out in the Equality Act 2010.
For all those reasons, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 251. If he moves the amendment, I urge the committee to reject it.
Amendment 283, in the name of Colin Smyth, would require that regulation-making provisions about the board
“ensure that membership of the Board is geographically diverse.”
I am confident that the consultation process that I have outlined will ensure that the membership of the board is well balanced and appropriately reflects the interests of passengers, operators and local transport authorities across Scotland. There are a number of technical issues with amendment 283 that mean that the legal effect might be unclear. For example, it is not clear what “geographically diverse” means, or how that would be measured or demonstrated. For all those reasons, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 283. If he does, I ask the committee to reject it.
My amendment 113 corrects a minor technical error in proposed new section 32A(3) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, by adding the word “National” to the title of the board in that section.
The Convener
No other members have indicated that they wish to speak to this group of amendments. However, Colin Smyth wants to speak to other amendments in the group, so I ask him to do that in his winding-up remarks.
Colin Smyth
The cabinet secretary said that my amendment 111 would restrict the board’s remit, but I have difficulty understanding how it would do so, because it would add an additional responsibility to the board’s existing remit. Far from restricting the board’s remit, amendment 111 simply asks the board to look at the additional responsibility that would be added. The amendment would expand the remit; it would not restrict it.
I am happy to support amendment 112, in the cabinet secretary’s name, as it would do something similar to what my amendment 111 would do by adding to the remit.
My amendments 251 and 283 refer to the membership of the smart ticketing advisory board. A number of stakeholders have made the point that the board must have regard to different accessibility needs. Indeed, the committee’s stage 1 report stated:
“membership of the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board should consist of a broad representation from all ... stakeholder groups, with particular attention paid to geographical spread and accessibility.”
I have sought to put the committee’s recommendation into practice. Amendment 283 says:
“Regulations under subsection (3) must ... ensure that membership of the Board is geographically diverse.”
Amendment 251 calls for regulations to ensure that disabled people are represented on the board. I strongly believe that the board must be able to deliver for people with a range of needs. The best way to ensure that that happens is to be inclusive through representation on the board, as the committee recommended. I note what the cabinet secretary said about guidance being published on the issue. On the basis that he has said that on the record, I am happy not to move amendments 251 and 283. However, the committee’s view on the matter was very clear.
I will press amendment 111.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 111 be agreed to? Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 111 disagreed to.
Amendment 112 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 251 and 283 not moved.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
After section 37
The Convener
The next group is on smart ticketing: contactless payment and top-up cards. Amendment 284, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendment 285.
Jamie Greene
These amendments are about smart ticketing, specifically in relation to contactless payments and top-up cards. I refer members to our stage 1 report. I appreciate that the amendments relate to a small section of the bill, but it is an important one, and we had a few evidence-taking sessions on the matter.
In our report summary, we stated that we were concerned that, although the provisions of the bill
“may will deliver some improvements ... these alone will not deliver the aspirations for ticketing arrangements and schemes that are shared by stakeholders.”
We also said that we were
“concerned that the provisions on ticketing arrangements ... in the Bill lack ambition”
and felt
“that an opportunity has been missed”.
We asked
“the Scottish Government to show leadership in this area and to bring forward proposals for the development of a single ticket scheme to be inserted into the Bill before it completes its parliamentary passage.”
I appreciate that we are at stage 2 but, in the absence of any amendments from the Government, we took on board the committee’s comments and tried to come up with some sensible amendments. Amendments 284 and 285 do not provide for a single ticketing system exactly, as I appreciate the complexities of that and realise that further work will be required, but the amendments address two things that we could do in the meantime.
The first is contactless payments. Amendment 284 seeks to require that ministers, via regulations,
“make provision requiring that contactless payment options are available as soon as reasonably practicable throughout Scotland for payment for entitlement to travel.”
It then goes on to define in detail what a “contactless payment” is.
Stewart Stevenson
I will put two questions to Mr Greene. First, can he identify any place in Scotland where it is not possible to make a contactless payment for travel? Secondly, is he envisaging that the provision must cover contactless payments for sums of money that are over the limit that is imposed by banks, which is currently £30 for a transaction?
Jamie Greene
I am sorry, but a few members were speaking. Would you mind repeating the second question?
Stewart Stevenson
Banks impose a limit of £30 on a transaction that may be authorised by contactless means. Are you attempting to encompass payments that are in excess of that value, or any other value that the banks may set?
Jamie Greene
Those are very good questions. It is unfortunate that the Government did not lodge such amendments, because those issues might have been covered.
On the first question, I think that there are many areas in which people cannot make contactless payments. I am sure that everyone around the table will have a local bus service for which you simply have to pay by cash or buy a ticket in advance. I do not want to single out any particular company, because I think there are some services that provide contactless payment methods, but there are many others that do not.
The answer therefore is that there are many areas in Scotland in which people cannot pay for bus journeys using contactless payment. I would like to see the further roll-out of it—that is what the committee said to the Government and that is what amendment 284 seeks. It would oblige ministers to introduce provisions to ensure that the option is made available
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
which is the language that is used in the amendment.
Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)
To assist Jamie Greene, I point out that in this city you cannot use contactless payment on Lothian Buses, which is rather a shame, given that everyone says that it is such a great service. In Glasgow—on First buses—you can, but in Edinburgh you cannot.
Jamie Greene
Thank you for confirming that, which demonstrates the issue. There are still many ScotRail services for which people cannot make contactless payments. I appreciate that there is a roll-out and good work is being done in that regard, but I am not aware that every single barrier is contactlessly enabled. Although, perhaps sufficient progress has been made.
Michael Matheson
At ticket machines, yes.
Jamie Greene
At ticket machines, but not at the barriers.
Michael Matheson
We are talking about contactless payment. People pay at the ticket machine, not at the barrier. You need a ticket to get through the barrier.
Jamie Greene
Thank you for confirming. My point is that I am asking the Government to come forward with its plans on the issue.
Amendment 285 is slightly different. It would place a duty on local authorities, rather than on the minister—which he may be pleased to hear—to consider the feasibility of introducing top-up cards. One of the things that Lothian Buses does well is the ridacard. It is a single card that is topped up monthly and which allows travel—
The Convener
Sorry, Mr Greene, I will ask you to stop there. I am struggling; there are several conversations going on around the table and it is polite to listen to what other people have got to say. I would like to be able to hear what Jamie Greene has to say, so could members limit the conversations, please?
I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Greene. Please continue.
18:30Jamie Greene
Thank you for your comment, convener. Amendment 285 says:
“Each local transport authority must prepare and publish an assessment of the feasibility of introducing”
top-up cards in its area. The amendment would not mandate authorities to introduce such a system, but I would like them within 12 months of the bill’s passing to publish their assessments of whether top-up cards are feasible. That is not an overly onerous ask.
In its stage 1 report, the committee asked the Government to make proposals for such cards but, in the absence of any such proposals, I have tried my best to come up with some. If the Government was willing to commit to presenting more tangible plans for the bill, which we asked for, I would be happy to look at them at stage 3.
I move amendment 284.
Mike Rumbles
I have a question. I am attracted by amendment 284, which is positive, and I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s response. In summing up, will Jamie Greene explain what the phrase “reasonably practicable” means in law, as we are making law? I am not sure what that term means.
The Convener
I am sure that Jamie Greene will come to that in winding up.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 284 and 285, in Jamie Greene’s name, would insert new sections 27D and 27E of the 2001 act into the provisions about ticketing arrangements and schemes in part 3 of the bill.
Amendment 284 would require the Scottish ministers to make provision through regulations to require contactless payment options to be available as soon as practicable throughout Scotland as a means to pay for travel. The amendment appears to be concerned with payment methods rather than ticketing arrangements, but I agree that it is important to give the travelling public options that make it easier to travel and promote the use of our public transport network. Contactless payment options can play a part in that, but contactless payment is not attractive or accessible to all sections of the travelling public, and it is important for it to be seen as only one of a range of available payment options.
It is important to note that the roll-out of contactless payment technology is moving at considerable pace, driven by customer demand, and we are seeing rapid growth in its availability across all public transport modes. ScotRail and all major bus operators now accept contactless payment. Contactless payment methods can also be used to buy tickets for many journeys on other public transport modes across Scotland.
The Scottish Government is committed to supporting operators to make such payment methods available where there is demand. To support further contactless payment availability on buses, the Scottish Government, with support from the European regional development fund, established a £1.1 million grant fund in November 2018 to provide financial assistance for upgrading equipment.
Given all that, it is not necessary or appropriate for the Scottish Government to regulate the provision of public transport services so as to compel operators to provide contactless payment options. To the extent that such a requirement applied to passenger rail services, it might be found to relate to the regulation of passenger railway services, which is a reserved matter that falls outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence.
For all those reasons, I ask Jamie Greene to withdraw amendment 284. If it is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.
Amendment 285 would require all local transport authorities to prepare and publish an assessment of the feasibility of introducing a travel card that can be topped up automatically and used across all forms of public transport in their areas. Such assessments would require to be published no later than one year after the bill received royal assent.
It is unclear whether such a travel card would be a type of payment arrangement or a ticketing arrangement. It is also unclear to which public transport services the provision would apply. In any event, it seems premature and disproportionate to impose through the bill a requirement on all local transport authorities to conduct such assessments before there is evidence of a need or desire for such arrangements in their areas. That is particularly the case given that the assessments and the timescale in which they would have to be completed could give rise to significant cost and resource implications for the authorities, which have not been consulted on the proposal.
For all those reasons, my view is that the obligation that amendment 285 would impose on LTAs is not necessary or appropriate, and I therefore ask Jamie Greene not to move it. However, if the amendment is moved, I urge the committee to reject it.
Jamie Greene
I thank members for their comments and feedback. The amendments are not intended to be difficult; rather I am trying to respond to the concerns that stakeholders raised with the committee at stage 1 and put them on paper—with the limited assistance that members get in drafting amendments.
In response to the cabinet secretary’s comments on amendment 285 that there will not be a need for assessments, I ask how local authorities would know that there is no need in an area until they had conducted some sort of feasibility study. If the minister thinks that one year after royal assent is too soon, it would be perfectly fine for him to take a different view and amend the bill at stage 3 to set the period at two or three years after royal assent, according to what he believes would give the authorities enough time to carry out that work. However, if we do not ask local authorities to do that piece of work, it will never be done. Simply assuming there is no need or desire for that work is not good enough. I want us to be ambitious on smart ticketing and amendment 285 is a small step towards that.
I do not think for one second that amendment 284 on contactless payments is outside the Parliament’s competence. I am sure that the bill team would have warned me about that when I was drafting the amendment. I thank them for their help.
On Mr Rumbles’s point about the term
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
in amendment 284, I would say that I think that those are the right words. We included a timeframe in amendment 285, because it related to a feasibility study and so could have a tangible limit, but rolling out contactless payment could take some time. I consulted on the best wording to use, but sometimes there is no right answer—I did not want to define a period, but I wanted it to be as soon as possible. The term
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
is commonly used in contractual law. I could refer the member to the case of Goldman Sachs International v Videocon Global, in which there was a dispute over the definition of “reasonably practicable”—I could spend some time going into that. In legal terms, it commonly means “as soon as it is reasonably possible for the parties concerned”. I am not sure how that could be changed to make it better, but I would like to see the premise of amendment 284 included in the bill. Perhaps with the help of the cabinet secretary and his team, we could get the wording on the timescales right.
Mike Rumbles
I am inclined to support amendment 284, but I am concerned about the term “reasonably practicable”. It would be helpful if the minister were to come back at stage 3 with the specific timeframe with which he would be comfortable. On that basis, I will support amendment 284.
Jamie Greene
I thank Mr Rumbles for his support. As members will have seen, I tend not to move amendments if the minister has said that he is uncomfortable with them. However, there is ample opportunity between now and stage 3, after the recess, to get the wording right in relation to amendment 284. I hope that other members of the committee will look favourably on what I am trying to achieve with amendments 284 and 285. I press amendment 284.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 284 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 284 disagreed to.
Amendment 285 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 285 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 285 disagreed to.
Section 38 agreed to.
Section 39—Directions about ticketing schemes
Amendment 113 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
The Convener
The next group is entitled “Smart ticketing: power of direction”. Amendment 114, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 114 reflects the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s consideration of the delegated powers in the bill. The DPLRC asked the Scottish ministers to consider amending new section 32A of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to include an express requirement for ministers to set out the reasoning behind any direction that they issue to local authorities under that section.
I agree that an open and transparent process will reassure all parties as to why the Scottish ministers have issued such a direction. To that end, I have lodged amendment 114 to make it clear that, when the Scottish ministers choose to exercise those powers to direct a local transport authority to make or revise a smart ticketing system, they will be required to set out their reasoning for doing so.
I move amendment 114.
Amendment 114 agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 40 and 41 agreed to.
After section 39
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on travel concessions schemes. Amendment 216, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendment 286.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
Amendment 216 would amend the Transport Act 1985 to ensure that travel concessions are available to children up to the age of 18 rather than 16. It would also get rid of subsection (7)(c) of the 1985 act, which created concessions for children in full-time education up to the age of 18. If amendment 216 is agreed to, that subsection will no longer be necessary.
Amendment 216 is necessary because many 18-year-olds still live at home, many are in full-time education and many are studying and not earning the minimum wage or are not earning at all. The minimum wage for 16 to 17-year-olds is much lower than it is for adults. According to research that I have done, depending on the geographical area of Scotland, a young person spends up to 10 per cent of their weekly pay on travel. In Glasgow it is around 7 per cent, and in Edinburgh and Bathgate it is around 10 per cent. In the first year of this parliamentary session, I set out to promote a member’s bill on discounted transport for young people—in particular, 16 and 17-year-olds. It is an injustice that young people turn 16 and immediately pay full fares on all public transport. It is not the best way to celebrate arriving at the age of 16.
In surveys that I carried out across schools in Glasgow, 16 and 17-year-olds, in particular, supported the policy, as we would have expected. Older teenagers felt that they would have benefited from the policy. Many young people told me that, when they turned 16, they would probably pretend that they were still under 16 in order to benefit from the concession. However, that is anecdotal and I will name no names.
Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
In drafting amendment 216, did the member look into the fact that local authorities can give grants for transport to young people who are still in full-time education not at the nearest school but perhaps at college?
Pauline McNeill
I consulted extensively with Young Scot and local authorities, and that particular suggestion did not come up. I will go on to say why that national provision is needed.
The Young Scot concessionary scheme entitles 16 to 18-year-olds to a third off the adult single fare on any registered bus service, a third off rail journeys and a 50 per cent discount on rail season tickets. Eligible island residents receive vouchers for four free ferry journeys a year. It is important to remember that ferries would be included in such an amendment.
The discounts for rail tickets are poor. The 16 to 25 railcard gives holders a third off, but they must travel after 10 am and they must spend more than £12. They can get the discount on a weekly or monthly ticket if they can afford to buy one. It is time for deeper discounts. I will focus, in particular, on 16 and 17-year-olds.
18:45Stewart Stevenson
There are approximately—it is an approximate figure—100,000 people between the ages of 16 and 18 in Scotland, and my back-of-an-envelope estimate is that we are being asked to authorise £40 million per annum. What is the member’s figure?
Pauline McNeill
I will get to that. I thought that the minister would raise the matter first, but you have beaten him to it.
I emphasise to the committee that I have spent a year doing this work. I have consulted Young Scot extensively, and I had discussions with Michael Matheson’s predecessor, Humza Yousaf, about the matter. The figure, which the bills unit was prepared to accept when I submitted it—I emphasise that it has not gone forward yet—is £3.2 million a year. Mr Stevenson should bear in mind that what I suggest in the amendment is that the half fare be extended. Young people aged 16 and 17 are already paying something. All that I am suggesting is that they continue to pay the half fare until they reach 18, when they will pay the full fare.
In 2007, the estimated cost of the scheme that I have just mentioned was £27 million to £30 million, but the latest figures show that spend on the scheme is only £1.6 million, so there is a considerable underspend of that budget. I fully accept that the cabinet secretary will say that the Government has spent the money on other things, but in 2007 we were going to spend a lot more on discounted travel. There may be some issues to do with reimbursement and people not claiming discounts, but, to my mind, the discounts are not that deep and the Government has not spent anywhere near the amount that was intended to be spent in 2007.
It would be significant if the Parliament recognised the injustice of people turning 16 and being charged full fares on buses, trains and ferries. I do not think that what I propose is particularly expensive, but I will wait with bated breath to hear what the minister has to say about it. If the amendment is not agreed to, I will ask him to consider whether there is some other way in which to give 16 and 17-year-olds a better deal on public transport, perhaps at weekends—that might be a compromise. However, it is certainly time to recognise that there is an injustice that this Parliament should fix.
I move amendment 216.
Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
What I propose has been a long-standing policy of the Scottish Conservatives, who have argued that the free bus scheme should be extended to community transport. Community buses are an essential part of rural Scotland, especially for older people. They are often the only direct links to healthcare as well as to friends, family and recreation. That is why my amendment 286 requires the Scottish Government to publish a report that sets out its assessment of the costs and benefits of extending the bus pass as well as to consult relevant stakeholders.
Maureen Watt
In a previous session of Parliament, we produced a report on community transport. We asked community bus organisations whether they wanted what Rachael Hamilton proposes, and most of them said that they did not want the kerfuffle and all the paraphernalia that would be involved in it. I wonder how many community transport organisations the member has consulted and whether they have changed their minds on the proposal.
Rachael Hamilton
I presume that Maureen Watt is speaking about the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee in the previous session of Parliament, which recommended that the Scottish Government should publish a report setting out an assessment of the costs and benefits of extending the bus pass scheme. I have spoken to many community transport providers in my constituency, and that would certainly make community transport more accessible and flexible. The whole point of the amendment is to make it easier for bus users to get across rural constituencies, in particular.
The transport secretary in the previous session of Parliament highlighted that there could be logistical issues with such a roll-out, and there would be cost implications. However, this is absolutely the right time and a prime opportunity for Scottish ministers to introduce such a measure. I cannot highlight enough how important community transport is as a lifeline in many constituencies. People in this room will sympathise with that view. In ensuring that community transport would remain accessible to those who rely on it the most, amendment 286 speaks for those people, and I ask members to support it.
John Finnie
I strongly support amendments 216 and 286, which some members seem to think are very ambitious. In fact, they are very modest amendments. Given that we have declared a climate emergency, we need to fundamentally change the profile of spending, and this is an issue of spending priority. People ask how much what is proposed would cost, but how much does the existing infrastructure cost, and what contribution is it making to tackling the climate emergency?
It is certainly the case that there are opportunities to expand travel for rural communities, and there is strong evidence for what amendment 216 proposes. The committee has previously heard that we need to encourage younger people to use public transport, as the use of it becomes habit forming. I understand that the arrangements in East Lothian, when Lothian Buses took over the routes there, were such that it purposely targeted that audience with some of the facilities on the buses. We need to target younger people in that way.
We need to move to a situation in which public transport is free. People smile at that, but that is the case in a number of areas. The issue is all about spending priority. I strongly support amendments 216 and 286.
Peter Chapman
I take a different view entirely. We cannot support Pauline McNeill’s amendment 216, which aims to extend free bus travel to all 16 to 18-year-olds regardless of whether they are in full-time education. As I argued when Labour brought a debate on free bus travel to the chamber a few months ago, as well as being extremely costly, the measure would not be used fairly across the country, because young people in rural areas with fewer or no services would not benefit from it.
Pauline McNeill
I want to make it clear that amendment 216 would not result in free transport; it would simply extend the half-fare payment to young people up to the age of 18. Those aged between 16 and 18 would continue to pay the half fare.
Peter Chapman
I take your point, but it would still be a costly measure to put in place, and constituents in rural areas, where services are very poor, would not benefit from it, as they cannot use buses to the same extent as those in other areas. I also believe that the cost would be considerably more than the £3.2 million that Pauline McNeill has suggested. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 216.
On the other hand, I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 286, for the reasons that have been explained.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 216 and 286 both seek to amend section 93 of the Transport Act 1985, which enables local authorities to establish travel concession schemes for public passenger transport services in their areas.
Amendment 216 would alter the categories of persons who are eligible to receive a travel concession under such a scheme by increasing the age limit for eligible young people from 16 to 18. Currently, 16 to 18-year-olds are eligible only if they are in full-time education. It is clear that, before any change to the categories of eligibility for local concession schemes that are fixed in the 1985 act could be made, the costs and other impacts of such a change would require to be rigorously assessed and discussed with local authorities, on which the costs would fall, as well as with other relevant stakeholders. In addition, all 16 to 18-year-olds who are resident in Scotland are already eligible for discounts on bus, rail and ferry journeys under the Scottish Government’s national concessionary travel scheme for young people, and, as the committee may be aware, the Scottish Government has committed to assessing the impacts of extending the entitlement to travel concessions offered to 16 to 18-year-olds under that scheme to all under-26-year-olds. We have taken that forward at the request of the Scottish Youth Parliament. For those reasons, I am of the view that amendment 216 is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Amendment 286 seeks to require the Scottish ministers to prepare a report on their assessment of the costs and benefits of extending travel concession schemes made by local authorities under section 93 of the 1985 act to community transport services. However, I am strongly of the view that it is not appropriate for the Scottish Government to be compelled to undertake that report. The costs and benefits relating to the provision of local schemes will rightly vary across the country, and that is a matter for each local authority. I can see no benefit in the Scottish Government carrying out such an assessment and reporting nationally on a purely local issue. In my view, the amendment would introduce unnecessary central Government bureaucracy and would do nothing to support the community transport sector.
That is not to say that the Scottish Government does not have a role in supporting community transport. We continue to fund the Community Transport Association and support initiatives on driver training, and the CTA sits on the bus stakeholder group, which I chair. Through that forum and others, we will engage with all stakeholders on implementation matters relating to the bill, and I will continue to promote the benefits of community transport in those discussions.
We must be clear that the requirements of both amendments would place the burdens of financing the schemes and planning for taking them forward entirely on local authorities, and I am not aware of any engagement that has been undertaken with local authorities to consider their taking on those additional burdens.
Jamie Greene
For the avoidance of doubt, can the minister point to where amendment 286 mentions a duty to fund the services? I am keen to pinpoint that. The amendment asks the ministers to produce an assessment of the costs and benefits of extending the schemes, which seems a fair ask.
Michael Matheson
The amendment relates to section 93 of the 1985 act, which enables local authorities to establish concessionary travel schemes, and not to the national concessionary scheme, which is the responsibility of the Scottish ministers. The amendment relates to entirely local schemes, and it ties into the legislation that enables their provision.
John Finnie
I am all for localism, but do you not see that a collective position could be adopted by the 32 authorities? We talk about the non-trunk-road network. Do you not see that you, as the transport secretary, have a responsibility that extends across that network?
Michael Matheson
It is important to recognise the role that local authorities have and their discretion to introduce schemes in their local areas where they see that as being appropriate. The amendments relate to local authorities and local concessionary travel schemes, not to the national concessionary travel scheme, which is operated by the Scottish ministers. That is why they are tied into section 93 of the 1985 act, which relates to local authorities, not the national Government.
Pauline McNeill
I do not accept that.
Colin Smyth
Would the cabinet secretary support a national cost benefit analysis of expanding concessionary travel to apply to community transport? Maybe we could lodge an amendment on that at stage 3.
Michael Matheson
As I have mentioned, in the work that we are undertaking on the concessionary travel scheme for under-26s, we are undertaking an assessment of the costs associated with that. Rachael Hamilton’s request, in amendment 286, relates to our undertaking a report to consider those matters. Beyond that, no practical purpose would be served other than the gathering of information on local schemes at a national level. That information is already available at the local level for local authorities.
Rachael Hamilton
If, following work involving the Scottish Government, it were possible to bring back at stage 3 an amendment that would give power to local authorities after the evidence had been gathered and the cost benefit analysis had been done, would that be beneficial?
Michael Matheson
If local authorities wish to carry out that exercise right now, they are free to do so. It does not need to be in the bill for it to be undertaken.
Rachael Hamilton
The Scottish Government could conduct that analysis, which would take the brunt of the burden from local authorities. The local authorities could then take the responsibility or leave it.
19:00Michael Matheson
I am not sure what you mean by that—for what purpose?
Rachael Hamilton
If we take this back to a simplistic process, the infrastructure and—
The Convener
I am mindful that this is becoming a conversation across the committee table.
Rachael Hamilton
Sorry, convener.
The Convener
I am very happy to have interventions. Cabinet secretary, you have been asked specifically whether, if the proposal was amended and brought back at stage 3, the Scottish Government would consider it. I ask you to answer that question, as that may clarify whether we can move on from this point.
Michael Matheson
I do not see how the proposal could be changed with the amendment as it stands. We are talking about local schemes that are operated by local authorities. If the Scottish Government undertook an assessment and a cost benefit analysis of those schemes at a national level, that would serve no additional purpose over and above what authorities can do at present. I am not sure what the benefit or purpose of such an analysis would be.
The Convener
On that note, I ask you to press on, cabinet secretary. I think that that is as close to a “no” as you are going to get, Rachael.
Michael Matheson
In conclusion, I ask Pauline McNeill not to press amendment 216. If it is pressed, I urge the committee to reject it. I also ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 286. If it is moved, I urge the committee to reject it.
Pauline McNeill
I do not accept the cabinet secretary’s interpretation of my amendment 216. The provisions already refer to a national scheme. In any case, even if he was concerned about that, it is perfectly possible to reimburse local authorities, as they are currently reimbursed for the national scheme. That is how it operates.
The cabinet secretary does not really seem to have addressed the question that I am trying to pose, which is on half fares for 16 and 17-year-olds. I have worked quite hard on the figures, and I stand by my figure of £3.2 million—although I accept that the figures are from 2017. I also stand by the fact that, although, in 2007, the Government intended to spend £27 million, it is spending less than £2 million on the concessionary scheme. That fact alone tells us that the discounts that have been referred to are not deep and certainly need reform.
I will press my amendment, which is about extending half fares to full fares. That can be accommodated by a national scheme. If the issue is that local authorities would have to pay, the cost could be covered by reimbursement from the Government. That is its job.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 216 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 216 disagreed to.
Amendment 286 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 286 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 286 agreed to.
Section 42—Pavement parking prohibition
The Convener
There will now be a slight change of people assisting the cabinet secretary. While that change is happening, I should explain that we will now be moving on to another grouping, which has a lot of amendments in it. The temptation is for everyone to speak to every single amendment. If that happens, we may still be here after recess. I therefore ask members to be as clear and concise as possible.
I see that we are now all in place.
The next group is on pavement parking orders and the extent of pavement parking prohibition. Amendment 115, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 116, 116A, 287 to 291, 118 to 121, 143, 146, 148, 150, 153, 155 and 161. I must point out that, if amendment 116 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 287 to 291.
Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)
I have 13 amendments in this very large group but, as you know, convener, I am a very succinct man and I do not intend to speak to every single one of them. [Interruption.] If Mr Lyle could stop sniggering, we might be able to get on with things. I know that you are all in here for the long haul.
When I was thinking about the proposals in the bill for banning pavement parking, I wondered about the effect of this kind of blanket ban, particularly if it is enforced—which, after all, is the key thing. Clearly, the answer is that cars will be forced off the pavement and on to the roads. [Interruption.] Convener, there is something going on around me.
The Convener
Papers are being circulated, but you do not need them, because they do not apply to these amendments.
Graham Simpson
Okay, then. I will carry on.
The proposal to take cars off the pavement and put them on to the road will in many streets in Scotland, particularly residential streets, be a recipe for chaos. The streets will be clogged up, and no one will be able to move.
The bill says that councils will be able to apply for exemptions, but what will happen is that lots of campaigns will spring up all over Scotland, asking councillors to exempt particular streets. That is just the reality. Councillors will be under extreme pressure to exempt the streets in their areas.
However, as this is a serious issue—indeed, that is why it is in the bill—I started thinking about whether there was a better way of achieving what we want to achieve. The idea behind amendment 115, from which all my other amendments flow, is to give councils the power to introduce pavement parking orders, if they see a need to do so. They would identify the areas where this is an issue, and they would then introduce an order to ban pavement parking in those areas. In other words, I am flipping what is a good idea on its head and trying to make this more of a local decision rather than a blanket nationwide ban.
East Kilbride, where I live, was not built with the motor car in mind, and certainly not the number of motor cars that we have now. Many streets already cannot cope with the number of cars that are in them, and if those cars are forced off pavements and on to roads, the town will just get snarled up. I certainly think that South Lanarkshire Council would be loth to introduce such orders in most parts of the town.
That is the basic idea behind my amendments. Amendment 116 merely flows from it and sets out what these pavement parking orders should do, while amendment 116A, in the name of Jamie Greene, adds to it. As I have said, the rest of my amendments are merely of a technical nature. The other amendments in the group have been lodged, I think, by Mark Ruskell, and he can justify them himself.
I move amendment 115.
Jamie Greene
I will start with Graham Simpson’s amendments. Very early on in the process, I had a conversation with him about the issue. My approach is twofold. First, I have reservations about the blanket nature of the proposals. The proposal is to have a nationwide ban and then to seek exemptions and exceptions. Certain streets will be permanently exempt from the rule. There is a lot of discussion to be had, which we will get to, about which streets should be exempt and the process that has to be gone through for that. There is also the issue of exceptions to the rule, which are the more short-term ways and circumstances in which the prohibition will not apply. No doubt we will also have a healthy debate about that.
From day 1, I noticed that we were talking a lot about double and pavement parking in the committee and in Parliament but that not a lot of people outside here were talking about it. When I talked to people about it, I got a lot of cautious feedback, but they accepted that there is an issue that we need to address. Helpfully, there is a cross-party consensus that we need to address the issue of inconsiderate parking, but there are many ways in which we can do that. The bill proposes one way, and Mr Simpson, in earnest, proposes a different way, which would make it easier for local authorities to address problems where they exist but would not create problems. I still have reservations about that, and some of my later amendments to part 4 will try to address some of those.
If we simply create a prohibition and move all cars on to the road, that will cause chaos in many local authority areas. Since we started considering the issue, I have been driving round looking at streets where there is pavement parking. I look at how much pavement there is next to the cars and at the circumstances and the reasons why the cars are on the pavement. A very small percentage of those people are being inconsiderate, perhaps because they are lazy and do not want to park anywhere else, but the majority of people do it because they feel that it is the right thing to do or they do not have any choice, because there is nowhere else to park.
We need to give serious consideration to Graham Simpson’s amendments. They take a different approach that flips the approach in the bill on its head. We need to be realistic about the cause and effect and the consequences if the blanket approach goes through. I am willing to support Graham Simpson’s amendments, as I like the pavement parking order approach, which is sensible. However, it may not get majority support from the committee, so I have taken a second, parallel approach. If there is a blanket prohibition, I want to try to clear it up and make it as pragmatic as possible. I think that members will see that my amendments would do both.
John Mason
Does the member accept that my amendment 1, which is in the next group, would be a compromise? As he says, the proposals in the bill and those of Graham Simpson are at opposite ends. If we ban parking except where there is 1.5m of pavement left, is that not a compromise?
Jamie Greene
We will come on to that group and debate amendment 1. I have amendments to that effect as well. I will support amendment 1, because it is a sensible compromise. However, I still think that that approach will create problems, and I will explain those when we get to the relevant group. Dictating a national standard of a 1.5m minimum would still create localised problems. I have other amendments that seek to address those problems, but I do not want to say any more about that group now.
My amendment in the current group, which is amendment 116A and which tries to add to amendment 116, is fairly self-explanatory.
I also want to comment on Mark Ruskell’s amendments. I am sympathetic to amendments 287 and 288, which address the issue of parking on a cycle track and include a definition of that. I tried to submit a similar amendment and was told that Mr Ruskell had already done so, so I am of a similar frame of mind on that.
However, I am not sure about amendment 289, which would include in the ban parking on
“any verge or planting adjacent to the carriageway”.
The whole point is to try to free up pavements. If there is a carriageway with a sloped grass verge next to it, it is unlikely that pram or wheelchair users will be on it anyway, so that is maybe superfluous.
I am willing to listen to the arguments on amendments 290 and 291, because I am intrigued as to what their effect would be. I will take a view on them after I have heard those arguments.
I hope that that has been helpful.
19:15Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
I will limit my comments to my amendments in the group, which aim to end the scourge of inconsiderate parking on three types of infrastructure that walkers and cyclists rely on. Amendments 287 and 288 concern dedicated cycle tracks. As Mr Greene said, they pick up an issue that the committee raised in its stage 1 report, which is that cycle tracks are often blocked by parked vehicles.
I know from cycling with my children that a parked vehicle in the middle of a cycle track is a hazard. That can force a cyclist into lanes of fast-moving traffic or into the parked vehicle’s dangerous door zone, which has obvious consequences if the driver or a passenger opens a door. It does not take too many such incidents to put somebody off cycling for life. The amendments would bring cycle tracks under the same regime as the Government has proposed for pavements and dropped kerbs, so that council wardens could enforce measures against inconsiderate parking.
Amendment 289 is about the status of verges. A pavement cycle track may be separated from the carriageway by some form of verge—grass or other plantings—but we all know that verges can be wrecked or rutted by poor parking, while parked vehicles obstruct the line of sight for pedestrians who are attempting to cross a road safely. I hope that part 4 implicitly includes verges in the definition of footpaths and footways, but it might not be explicit enough. I hope that amendment 289 will bring clarity from the cabinet secretary.
Amendments 290 and 291 cover the school keep-clear yellow zig-zag lines—perhaps they match Mr Greene’s amendments about white zig-zag lines; we are brothers in arms. I suggest that a standing agenda item at every parent council meeting that I have attended has been disbelief that such striking yellow signs are only advisory and cannot be enforced, which defeats their purpose of ensuring that school entrances are clear of obstructions and creating a safe environment for children and parents when they enter and leave school premises. The amendments would allow parking wardens to enforce those obvious zones and would make it clear that the lines should be enforced only when they are needed, which is during the school day and not at other times such as weekends or in school holidays.
The Convener
I call Colin Smyth, to be followed by Sandra White.
Colin Smyth
Graham Simpson’s amendments would remove the ban on pavement parking and replace it with an enabling power for local authorities to issue a pavement parking order to ban pavement parking on certain streets or in certain areas. That would fundamentally undermine the aim of section 42.
Pavement parking is a significant hazard, particularly for people who have mobility issues, who use wheelchairs or who have visual impairments, and such parking should be banned outright with limited exemptions. I can only imagine the challenges that we would have if one local authority banned pavement parking while a neighbouring authority did not ban it. Each area would require signage to make that clear and huge challenges would arise.
Amendments 287 and 288, in the name of Mark Ruskell, would add cycleways to the parking prohibition. I, too, looked at that issue, because I believe that parking on cycleways should be banned. However, I understand from the feedback that I received that it is already banned under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and that we should not duplicate that legislation. If that is not the case, I will support the amendments.
One question is whether such a ban should be extended to advisory cycleways—the current ban is on parking on mandatory cycleways. All the feedback that I received from cycling groups was that they were reluctant for the ban to be extended, because that could have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of advisory cycleways that local authorities pursued.
I understand that parking is already banned on mandatory cycleways. I hope that the cabinet secretary will confirm that, because that will determine whether amendments 287 and 288 are required.
I have no problem at all with amendment 289, which would clarify that the ban covers
“any verge or planting adjacent to the carriageway”,
as I am not aware that parking on such areas is already banned.
I have a lot of sympathy for amendment 290, but my slight concern is about how school entrances would be defined—how wide would they be?
If it is simply where there are currently advisory zig-zags, I would support that. I am thinking about the practical implications and the areas that would be covered. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will cover that point. I am very sympathetic to the proposal.
The Convener
I said that I would bring in Sandra White next, although I have been told that committee members should be allowed to speak first. However, I will stick to my word.
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for allowing me to speak today. I will not reiterate what Colin Smyth has said, but I agree with every word.
As well meaning as amendment 115 may be, as Colin Smyth says, it would mean that we might as well not have a bill on pavement parking. I worked on the Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill for many years and I thank the committee and the Government for adopting it under the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
It is important that our society looks after all its members, including people who are blind, people who are in wheelchairs, people pushing prams, elderly people and vulnerable people, who cannot walk on a pavement simply because there are cars parked on it. The pavement parking element of the bill could not be implemented if the ban was introduced on a council-by-council basis.
Graham Simpson should recognise that there will be an educational aspect to the bill. I never set out to make the bill punitive. We should educate people to let them know that pavements are for people and not for parking. I am sympathetic to the point that John Mason made on that and, as Colin Smyth said, there will be exemptions. There are circumstances just down the road in Leith where we could not do other than have parking slightly on the pavement. There will be exemptions, but a ban cannot be introduced on an individual council basis.
Given all the hard work that people, including disabled people, have put into the pavement parking ban, it would be a travesty if we were to decide that it should not apply everywhere in Scotland and it was left up to each council.
I take on board what Jamie Greene is saying about setting exemptions. That will be looked at. In particular, amendments 287 and 288 on cycle lanes raise an issue that we should be looking at. However, as Colin Smyth said, it is already against the law.
I will not take up any more of the committee’s time. A lot of work has gone into this part of the bill and I ask the committee not to support amendment 115.
Mike Rumbles
This is about ending the scourge of the obstruction of our pavements by people who should know better. We want to send a message that people should not park on our pavements, obstructing people who are disabled and young mums and dads with prams and so on. Graham Simpson’s amendment would completely reverse that and ruin the message.
The current law says that it is illegal to drive on our pavements, yet we all see cars parked on our pavements. How did they get there? Was it magic? No, they were driven there. People are already breaking the law, so we should send a clear message that that is not acceptable.
There are exceptions in the bill that the cabinet secretary is allowing for areas where it is proving very difficult to end such a practice. Local authorities are best placed to make the decision on such exceptions. It is important that we send out a national message: “Do not obstruct our pavements”.
John Mason
Will the member take an intervention?
Mike Rumbles
I will in a minute.
I am glad that John Mason was trying to get in there, because I think that I know what he was going to talk about.
John Mason
No.
Mike Rumbles
Right. I do not know what he was going to talk about.
The Convener
It will be a surprise.
Mike Rumbles
I was going to say that, in the next section of the bill, John Mason has an amendment on the same principle of leaving a gap. We will discuss that when we get there.
The point that I am making is that we must be really clear. If we start messing about with sections and turning the whole process back to front, we will be in trouble.
I am a bit concerned about amendments 287 and 288, in Mark Ruskell’s name, because when I questioned the cabinet secretary and his staff at stage 1, the clear message from the officials was that such parking is already banned and illegal.
Mark Ruskell
I accept that, but the issue is that, currently, the ban can only be enforced by the police and the police are rather busy. The police have limited time and therefore, extending the provision to enable traffic wardens to be able to police parking in cycle lanes would make a lot of sense, would it not?
Mike Rumbles
That is a good point and I would like to hear the minister’s response to that question. If he accepts that, I certainly will. However, I am just referring back to stage 1—that was the evidence that we received. Unless the advice changes, I am a bit concerned about that.
The Convener
Mr Mason’s comment will remain a surprise until he gets a chance to say it.
Richard Lyle
I agree with Mike Rumbles—at the end of the day, I believe that pavements should be for people and cars should go on roads. The problem is that we all see many cars parked on pavements. I know that Mr Mason will say that there are some pavements that are big enough for cars, but I refer to the comment from Guide Dogs Scotland:
“These amendments would remove the new provisions on pavement parking from the bill entirely and restore the old system where councils are only able to restrict pavement parking street by street.”
People complain that councils do not have any money. We would be forcing councils to look at each individual street, send out an official and maybe have a consultation. Tackling the problem of pavement parking pre-emptively could be expensive, with extensive requirements for signage and consultation. Basically, it would leave pedestrians at risk from inconsiderate pavement parking. I want to see cars parked on the street; I do not want to see them parked on the pavement. I cannot support Mr Simpson’s amendments.
Jamie Greene
I hear what everyone is saying and I think that Sandra White made a good point about the valiant efforts that have gone into having pavement parking included in the bill. As I have said from the beginning, there is a lot of cross-party support for tackling this issue. No one is suggesting for a moment that we want drivers to block the pavement.
I think that the point that Graham Simpson was trying to make, which others have alluded to, is that if you simply move all these cars off the pavement on to the road tomorrow, that will cause accessibility issues on many roads. I will not name them all—we will talk about that later, but I could be here all night, because we all have streets in our constituencies and regions where, if you simply moved the cars from the pavement to the road, it would block the road.
I would politely ask Graham Simpson to withdraw all his amendments in light of the committee’s direction of travel and I thank him for raising the issues with the practicality of delivering a sensible policy. When we get on to the exemption process, I hope that we will make some sensible decisions on what it should look like.
In response to the point that what is being proposed will create a huge workload for local authorities, I say that the reality is that they will have to go through the exemption process on a street-by-street basis anyway, because they will have to go through their local authority areas and work out which streets they want to exempt. That, by default, will create a process that currently does not exist, so we have to put things in context in that respect.
The Convener
Once the cabinet secretary and Graham Simpson have made comments and we have finished looking at the amendment, we will take a pause. I think that some members are ready for that.
Michael Matheson
I take your hint, convener.
The aim of the pavement parking prohibition is to introduce a clear national ban on pavement parking while still enabling local authorities to consider whether to exempt certain streets in their area from that ban if they consider it appropriate to do so.
John Mason
You referred to exemptions. I was going to intervene on exemptions when Mike Rumbles was speaking. Do you think that councils will have exemptions? They will be just like TROs—there will be a hassle factor and a cost factor, and councils are under pressure. Do you not think that there will be hardly any exemptions?
Michael Matheson
I think that the way in which the system is set out in the bill means that the likelihood of a greater level of exemptions is lower than it is in Mr Simpson’s suggested approach, which I suspect would result in a much greater level of exemptions being provided.
19:30Mr Simpson’s amendments 115 and 116 seek to remove the national prohibition on pavement parking and instead enable local authorities to make pavement parking orders to prohibit pavement parking in areas of their choosing. Amendment 118 seeks to remove the power to make exemption orders, as they would no longer be needed in the absence of a national prohibition, and amendment 119 seeks to make provision about the form and content of, and procedure associated with, pavement parking orders.
Amendment 120 seeks to make provision about the traffic signs required where a prohibition is in place under such an order, and amendments 121 and 143 seek to make provision on exceptions and penalty charges respectively. Amendments 146, 148, 150, 153, 155 and 161 seek to make a number of technical and consequential changes. Finally, Jamie Greene’s amendment 116A seeks to require a local authority to assess the effects of creating parking prohibitions before making a pavement parking order.
If the amendments were to be accepted, local authorities would have discretion over whether a pavement parking prohibition would be introduced at all in their areas, instead of there being, as proposed in the bill, a countrywide prohibition. I cannot support such a fundamental change in the aim of the bill’s pavement parking provisions, as it would not provide a uniform, national solution to a difficult problem that the Parliament has been considering for some time. It could lead to a fragmented approach, with one local authority banning all pavement parking and others choosing to remain with the status quo. That would simply confuse motorists and frustrate pedestrians.
Seventy-three per cent of those who responded to the Government’s “Improving Parking in Scotland” consultation supported a ban on pavement parking on all of Scotland’s roads, and the figure rose to 76 per cent when only responses from public bodies were considered. That indicates clear support for the original proposal of a countrywide ban.
Although amendments 287 to 291, in the name of Mark Ruskell, raise important issues that are worthy of consideration, they are unnecessary, due to existing statutory provisions. Amendments 287 and 288, which seek to include cycle tracks in the pavement parking prohibition in section 42, are unnecessary because parking a motor vehicle on a cycle track is already a criminal offence under section 129(6) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The decriminalised parking enforcement regime under the Road Traffic Act 1991 gives the Scottish ministers the power, on an application made by a local authority in Scotland, to make an order that designates the whole or part of that local authority’s area a “special parking area”. Where such a designation order is in place, the criminal offence in relation to parking on cycle tracks ceases to apply, and a civil penalty charge is payable instead. These particular amendments would therefore cut across existing civil and criminal enforcement options with regard to parking on cycle tracks.
Amendment 289 seeks to include in section 42 of the bill verges and other planting adjacent to the carriageway in the pavement parking prohibition. However, verges are more properly regarded as being part of the road itself, as the verge is included in the definition of “road” for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That act allows the Scottish ministers to make traffic regulation orders and temporary traffic regulation orders that prohibit parking on roads, which, as I have mentioned, include verges. Under sections 5 and 16 of the 1984 act, contravention of a traffic regulation order or a temporary traffic regulation order is a criminal offence. In addition, the reference to
“planting adjacent to the carriageway”
in amendment 289 is not defined, and its meaning is potentially ambiguous. To the extent that other planting is properly regarded as being a verge, the powers that I have already described allow for that to be prohibited under a traffic regulation order.
Amendments 290 and 291 are also unnecessary, as provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 already combine to make stopping or parking on a school entrance a criminal offence.
Amendment 290 seeks to include
“school etc. entrance from 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday during school term”
in the definition of “pavement” in section 42(4) of the bill, thereby including such entrances in the pavement parking prohibition during the periods specified.
Amendment 291 defines “school etc. entrance” so that the term
“is to be construed in accordance with schedule 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.”
Item 10 in part 4 of schedule 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 prescribes a road marking to indicate a school entrance. That can be combined with a no-stopping sign, which may or may not prescribe time periods when it applies. The combination of the school entrance road marking being in place and section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes it an offence not to comply with traffic signs, means that failure to comply with the road marking that indicates no stopping on a school entrance is already a criminal offence.
Mark Ruskell
Does the cabinet secretary have any insight into why those provisions are not currently being enforced? He has described the TSRGD and the various options that are available. Why is the issue therefore a standing agenda item at every single parent council, as I have said?
Michael Matheson
In short, it is ignorance. People who park in those areas are being ignorant in disregarding the safety of children and other road users. The issue that you seek to address is enforcement, which is a matter for the police to address. There was an issue at my children’s school, for example, and additional enforcement measures were put in place over a period of time in order to get the message across. Did that improve the situation? Yes, it did. However, the bottom line is that those who seek to ignore road markings at a time when no police officer is present are simply being ignorant in respect of the risk that they pose as a result.
I ask Graham Simpson not to press or move his amendments, and I ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 116A. I also ask Mark Ruskell not to move amendments 287 to 291. If any of those amendments are pressed or moved, I urge the committee to reject them.
Graham Simpson
I thank committee members for all their comments.
I need to make it clear that I am not against what the cabinet secretary is trying to achieve; I have simply suggested a different approach. I take on board what Sandra White said. Please be assured that I am not against what you are trying to achieve; I have just suggested a more flexible approach.
We would expect this law to be enforced, as we would hope that any law would be. However, if it is enforced, I think that councils will be queuing up at the cabinet secretary’s door for exemptions. Nonetheless, I have heard the committee’s comments, and I will seek to withdraw or not move every single one of my amendments—all 13 of them. I can read them all out if you wish, convener, but I am sure that you have a list.
The Convener
Withdrawing just the one—amendment 115—will allow us to move on to the other amendments. Thank you for listening to the discussion.
Amendment 115, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
I suspend the meeting for seven minutes.
19:39 Meeting suspended.19:46 On resuming—
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on pavement parking prohibition: exceptions including width of vehicle intrusion on pavement. Amendment 4, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 1, 292, 293, 117, 294 to 297, 124, 298, 299, 126, 300 to 302, 128, 129, 131, 303 to 305, 133, 134, 306, 307, 138, 139, 139A, 139B, 140, 308 and 309. Due to pre-emptions, if amendment 129 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 130, which is to be debated in a subsequent group, or amendments 131 and 133 in this group.
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the committee for giving me time to speak. I am aware that you considered amendments last week and this morning—from the crack of dawn—and that you have also been doing so this evening, so I hope not to detain you for any length of time.
A photograph has been circulated, because I did not want my lack of descriptive skills to be a barrier to the amendment. However, I will attempt to describe it clearly.
The Convener
You should attempt to describe it briefly, for the record.
Jackie Baillie
I will.
Amendment 4—I will limit my comments to that amendment—is simple. It is designed to prevent cars with extended bodywork—essentially, large boots—from hanging over pavements. If you accept the principle that pavements should be kept clear of cars because of people with visual impairments, people in wheelchairs and mothers with prams, you will also accept that those larger-than-normal cars—which might be parked perfectly legally—might cause an obstruction on pavements.
I am conscious that some members of the committee might have cars that are similar to the ones that I am talking about—that was pointed out to me during the suspension. I do not intend to point out who they are.
The photograph that I have distributed is not the worst example. The pavement in the picture is quite wide.
John Mason
That is the point that I want to make. Jackie Baillie has mentioned cars but, in my constituency, the problem appears to be to do with vans. I have seen vans with a distance between the rear wheel and the rear of the van that can cover the whole pavement. Does Jackie Baillie agree with that point?
Jackie Baillie
Absolutely—I entirely agree. There are vans, mini-trucks and trucks that would be a better fit in Texas than downtown Dumbarton. A range of vehicles could cause quite bad obstructions—even though they park within the law, with their wheels on the road, not the pavement—because the overhang is so significant.
The photograph does not show the worst example, but this was an issue that was raised with me by a resident of Dumbarton—hence the amendment that I lodged. I hope that the cabinet secretary might find his way to accepting it.
I move amendment 4.
The Convener
On that note, we will move on to John Mason.
John Mason
Amendment 1 is my sole amendment in the group, and I intend to speak only about it.
I lodged amendment 1 for reasons that are similar to those that Graham Simpson and Jamie Greene have spoken about. Frankly, we do not have enough space in our towns for what we would like to do. Ideally, we would all like to have the full use of pavements, cycle lanes, parking space, and enough room on the roads, but there is just not enough space for all those things. The aim of my amendment is to provoke discussion and seek compromise, or a halfway house, to get balance.
Just this week, I had people at my surgery from a new estate, on which the roads tend to be quite narrow, who complained that the bin lorry could not get past a parked car, even though it had two wheels on the pavement and two wheels on the road. If that is the case, parking the car fully on the road would make things even worse.
My fear is that none of the solutions that any of us are putting forward would really solve the issue. The cabinet secretary recently made the point that it is all very well having rules, but they need to be enforced. That is the key issue. I continue to be concerned that the exemptions are not likely to happen and that councils will tend to avoid them.
To find out what the councils thought, I wrote to all 32 of them. I am very grateful that 21 of them replied. Some responses were quite brief, but I had some extremely good responses. Dundee City Council, for example, was very thorough in some of the points that it made. It said that
“there is not enough road space to accommodate vehicles”,
that “enforcement is very limited” in certain areas, and that, although it understood the point of having a 1.5m exemption, that would create problems and, in many ways, is “too simplistic.” A lot of the councils said that. The council said that that could
“restrict the Council’s ability on how to manage parking in its own area.”
The council also considers that it should have more discretion. In fact, in some cases, it allows vehicles to park fully on the pavement if there is sufficient room, and it might want to continue to allow that. It says that, in other areas, especially in a town centre, where there are a lot of pedestrians and all the rest of it, 1.5m would not be enough. The council also asks:
“Where are these vehicles expected to park?”
All in all, I lodged the amendment to create a discussion. Others have taken part in that. I suspect that a simple 1.5m exemption is not the answer, but I wanted to have the opportunity to raise those points anyway.
Jamie Greene
I have a lot of amendments in this group—that is just because of how they have been grouped together—and I hope that members will bear with me as I try to get through them. The ones that are consequentials are technical amendments, and I will skip over those in order to get to the substantive points and the amendments that I think deserve debate.
Section 43, which is on exemptions and exceptions, is an important part of the pavement parking element of the bill. On John Mason’s point, we have looked at different approaches. A number of members have lodged similar amendments on the minimum width of pavement that must remain free. That is an admirable intention. I am quite keen to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on the issue. Putting in a default minimum that would allow some form of on-pavement parking—that is my reading of John Mason’s amendment—would be a comprise. That would be a sensible alternative to not allowing any such parking at all. However, if 1.5m were to be a national standard to which local authorities must adhere as part of the exemption-making process, I think that that would create some of the problems about which members have concerns.
It is not that I am unsupportive of having a 1.5m minimum width of free pavement; the issue is that putting that in the bill in the way in which it is currently presented would create, in effect, a rules-based system in which no exemption could be granted, unless there is 1.5m of pavement left available. There are lots of examples where the available pavement may be 1.45m or nearly 1.5m, but if the local authority still wants to allow some form of parking with two wheels on the pavement, it should be allowed to, because, as was alluded to, there is nowhere else to put the cars. That is a genuine issue.
I was not aware of the work that Mr Mason had done in writing to local authorities. That is a great piece of work, because they are the ones that will have to deliver what the bill proposes and enforce the ban on pavement parking. They will have to work out where in their areas the exemptions should be and do what is right for their communities.
The problem with a nationally decided rule on an exemption from the ban where 1.5m of the pavement remains free is that that involves telling local authorities what the exemption process should look like. I want to give local authorities the flexibility to make localised decisions, based on their knowledge of their local roads, which they know best, taking into account the circumstances, which do not relate only to the width of the pavement or—some of my amendments deal with this—the width of the road. The issue is more complex than that. It involves consideration of what else is around those streets, what other parking provision is available and where the cars will be displaced to if they are banned from parking on the pavement. We have not given enough time to consideration of those issues.
I would love to read the responses from local authorities. I hope that the Government will work with Mr Mason and the committee to come up with a solution. I do not think that a 1.5m exemption is the solution, but I think that there is a solution out there that we can find. I hope that the bill team will reflect on that.
Amendment 292 seeks to remove from the bill section 43(2), which says:
“A footway may not be specified in an exemption order unless it ... has the characteristics specified by the Scottish Ministers”.
My problem with that is that, again, it is ministers who will dictate what characteristics a pavement must have before an exemption can be granted. From day 1, I have believed that local authorities should make that decision, instead of the Scottish ministers laying down guidelines that local authorities must take into account. That is why I want to remove that provision.
I turn to amendment 293. I contemplated flipping Mr Mason’s idea on its head and, instead of specifying that there should be a minimum pavement width, specifying a minimum road width. That is often done in other regulations. I have looked at many of the Government’s regulations on road widths and planning guidance. Originally, I included a specific width in amendment 293 but, having spoken to the legislation team, I decided that it would not be a wise idea to prescribe a minimum road width to allow the safe passage of emergency vehicles, because every road is different, and different rules are attached to different types of roads. That would not have been a sensible proposal, so I changed the amendment.
Basically, amendment 293 says that the prohibition cannot apply—in other words, cars cannot be moved from the pavement to the road—if that would create a scenario in which the road was not wide enough for an emergency vehicle to get down it. Ultimately, my amendment is about allowing normal access through our roads. If moving the cars from the pavement to the road would make the road so narrow that it would not be possible to get an emergency vehicle through it, I do not think that the prohibition on pavement parking should apply to such a road. That is the intention behind amendment 293; I am sure that I will get some feedback on it. It would not solve the problem of what to do about where the cars will go, but it would at least give local authorities a bit more flexibility with regard to where the prohibition would apply and where there could be exemptions.
Some of the other amendments on the subject are technical. Amendment 296 is on signage, but I take on board the conversation that we had earlier. I am keen to hear whether the Government proposes that the exemption signage will be standardised throughout the country or whether each local authority will have to devise its own format. We had a similar conversation in relation to low-emission zones, and I take on board the feedback that the Government will issue guidance on signage. Therefore, I will probably not move amendment 296. There are some other amendments on the same issue.
I am sorry that I have so many amendments in this group. Another important one is amendment 298, which seeks to give local authorities an additional power in relation to exceptions, which are different from exemptions. It stipulates that the prohibition would not apply to vehicles that were being used for
“such other purposes as a local authority may prescribe”.
A number of my amendments deal with scenarios in which I think that an exception should apply, to which I hope that members will give some thought. I would like to think that local authorities would use the proposed power to prescribe the circumstances in which an exception should apply in a sensible manner and would not create exceptions simply to get round the legislation. I think that local authorities would make sensible decisions about the scenarios in which they would grant an exception. Amendment 298 would provide an enabling power.
On amendment 300, I had a lot of consultation with stakeholders, as many of us did, around the prohibitions on not just pavement parking but double parking and the idea that adequate leeway should be given to people who are dropping off people who are vulnerable, are disabled or have impaired mobility. We will discuss the 20-minute rule later, but I would like the bill to state that those prohibitions do not apply if a vehicle is being used to pick up or drop off someone who is disabled, is vulnerable or has impaired mobility.
Again, I am happy for the wording to be altered to make it as competent as possible, but it is important to give drivers the ability to pick up elderly relatives and drop off people with disabilities. That may take some time and they may have to double park. We need to accept that that is normal and that they are not trying to be difficult. I cannot see anything in the bill that will allow them to do that, and that is why I would like that exception to be included in the bill.
20:00Amendment 301 is to do with taxis, which are also used to collect people and drop them off. They should be given a reasonable time to do that in the normal course of their business. The amendment does not mean that a taxi driver could double park and go and do his shopping, as it provides that it has to be in the course of collecting or dropping off passengers. Again, I would like that exception to be in the bill.
I will not go into detail on the minor amendments in the group, which cover matters such as whether an officer is wearing a uniform, but I will comment on the one on emergency situations. The bill includes an exception in such situations as long as the vehicle
“is so parked for no longer than is necessary”,
but it is difficult to predetermine how long an emergency situation will last. It could last all night. It could take days to resolve an emergency situation in which someone has had to abandon their car in order to respond. I seek to remove the provision in relation to such situations but leave it in elsewhere in the bill.
The final important amendment in the group is amendment 308, which perhaps gets to the nub of the matter. I am trying to get to an end point where it is local authorities that determine whether the prohibition applies. I want to give them the final say on both exemptions and exceptions, because they are best placed to take a view both in the long term on exemptions and in the short term as officers at the scene dictate. Let us give them the power to make sensible decisions in the circumstances that they are faced with, and not pre-empt that by setting down the ground rules.
I will leave it there and not speak to the other amendments in the group, as I appreciate that it is a big group. However, it is really important that we get the exemptions and exceptions aspect of the bill right.
The Convener
Thank you, Jamie. I call on Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 117 and any other amendments in the group.
Colin Smyth
Thank you, convener. Jackie Baillie’s amendment 4 is a welcome addition to the bill. Parking in a way that causes a vehicle to overhang a pavement has exactly the same effect for pedestrians as parking a car on the pavement does, so it is common sense that we should include that in any ban.
My amendment 117 clarifies that an exemption order should not be issued in an instance where a car that is parked partially on the pavement is likely to leave less than 1.5m. It does almost the opposite of what John Mason is looking to do. I recognise the need for exemption orders to allow local authorities to exempt streets from the ban when that is absolutely necessary. However, to put it simply, I do not think that exemptions should allow drivers to obstruct the pavement. The distance of 1.5m is widely agreed to be the reasonable minimum width for pedestrians, including those with prams and those in wheelchairs, and my amendment would ensure that that distance would have to be left under any exemption orders.
If cars are allowed to continue to obstruct pavements then, ultimately, the ban will not deliver on its purpose. We need to be absolutely clear about the matter in the bill. My amendment, in effect, considers pavements as places for pedestrians, so the focus is on them rather than on where cars may go. To be frank, cars should be on the road and not on the pavement.
Amendments 124, 126, 128, 134 and 138, in the name of Mike Rumbles would likewise clarify that the various exemptions that are set out in the bill do not apply in instances where less than 1.5m is left, and I fully support them.
My amendment 129 would remove the exemption for deliveries and amendment 139 would require the Scottish Government to produce regulations that served a similar purpose. Members will recall that, at stage 1, the committee raised major concerns about the workability of that exemption. Given the risk that it would end up being a loophole, I have concerns about its inclusion in the bill, but I recognise the need for a form of exemption for deliveries. For that reason, I believe that the proposed exemption or, preferably, an alternative should be set out in regulations so that, if there are unintended consequences, it can be changed more easily than would be possible if it was in the bill.
Jamie Greene
Will the member take an intervention?
Colin Smyth
I will.
Jamie Greene
You have given me the perfect opportunity to say that, in my haste to try and speed things up, I forgot to speak to amendment 303, which seeks to remove the 20-minute cap. I see that Colin Smyth supports such a move, but does he agree that that is one but not the only sensible solution for dealing with the loading and unloading of goods? As I am sure that others will point out, concerns were expressed about the creation of these 20-minute drop-off rules, which could encourage people to double park or park on the pavement. Removing the cap does not solve the problem—we still need to find a sensible solution with regard to the amount of time we give businesses to load and unload their vans.
Colin Smyth
Jamie Greene makes a valid point, and it is covered in amendment 303 in his name, which effectively seeks to remove the 20-minute time period from the bill. When the committee discussed the issue, we considered that to be unenforceable, and stakeholders expressed concern that it might be taken to mean that everyone could have 20 minutes instead of their being encouraged to take as little time as possible. I certainly support amendment 303.
Unfortunately, I have now forgotten where I had got to in my previous comments. [Laughter.] Sadly, all it means is that I might well repeat what I have just said.
I think that I was supporting what Mike Rumbles had been saying. Amendments 139A and 139B in my name to my own amendment 139 suggest how an alternative produced in regulations could tighten things up compared with the drafting in the bill. Amendment 139A seeks to require a vehicle not to be “left unattended”. That does not mean that the driver has to be in or even next to the vehicle at all times—it simply means that they have to be in the vicinity. For example, if a driver was away from their vehicle while making a delivery at the top of a building, that might be acceptable, but if they were away for an extended period of time at a completely different location from where they were making the delivery, that might not be acceptable. Members might have concerns about the language in these amendments, but it is used in a similar context in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, so it is a recognised way forward.
Amendment 139B seeks to clarify that the exemption should not allow vehicles to obstruct a pavement if only 1.5m or less of the pavement is left free for the public. It was widely agreed that that was the minimum amount of space that should be left on the pavement.
Amendments 304 and 305 seek to make the same additions to the text in the bill, but they will be moved only if my previous amendments seeking, in effect, to delete the section of the bill in question are not agreed to. In other words, they provide alternatives to the wording of that section. I would prefer it very much if this section were removed entirely and the provisions put in regulations instead, but if the committee does not support such a move, these amendments will, I believe, help to strengthen the section in question.
Like amendment 305 in my name, amendment 138 in the name of Mike Rumbles also seeks to prevent exemption orders being issued where less than 1.5m of the pavement will be left. If the committee chooses to keep the section in place and to amend it instead, I will be happy to support either amendment 131 or 305.
The Convener
I ask Mike Rumbles to speak to amendment 124 and any other amendments that he wishes in the group.
Mike Rumbles
My eight amendments are all about finding a sensible compromise. The most important is amendment 131, which cuts to the very quick of the matter.
Let me explain: as members will remember, we heard evidence that there must be exemptions to the parking prohibitions, and I think that it is absolutely right and proper for the subsections in question to be in the bill. However, controversy arose, I think, with section 47(6), which states that
“prohibitions do not apply where ... the motor vehicle is, in the course of business ... being used for the purpose of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or ... being loaded from or unloaded to any premises”
for a “period of 20 minutes”. I lodged two amendments on the matter, which I subsequently withdrew, only to find Colin Smyth lodging an identical amendment with amendment 129 and Jamie Greene doing the same with amendment 303. I therefore ask them not to move those amendments, given that I have withdrawn my own. I did so, because, I am pleased to say, in discussions leading up to stage 2, I found the cabinet secretary to be very amenable to logic and evidence and to coming up with a compromise that I am certainly happy with.
At the end of the day, it is about the 1.5m, and that is the solution; it is generally accepted. We want to avoid blocking the pavement for pavement users, such as disabled people, young mums and dads or elderly mums and dad or grandparents with children in prams—anybody who needs to get through.
When I saw the original bill, I thought that it drove a coach and horses through what we intend, and the minister recognised that, so I give him due credit. Between us, we have come up with these amendments. They are in my name but they were a joint effort, and I thank the minister for that.
The solution to this whole issue is to vote for my amendments.
The Convener
The answer to that, Mr Rumbles, is that we will see when we get to the vote.
Rachael Hamilton
I urge members not to double park or park on the pavement tonight when they pick up their fish and chips.
My amendment 302 goes along with my theme for tonight, which is supporting community transport providers. It also complements Jamie Greene’s amendment 300.
I completely agree that inconsiderate parking must be tackled but, if the prohibition of pavement parking includes community transport providers, it will have a detrimental effect on vulnerable people. Many members have tonight spoken about the specialists who are affected. Parking on the pavement might assist with the collection of or dropping off of wheelchair users, for example. That is why I urge the committee to support amendment 302 to allow community transport providers to park on the pavement when it is reasonable to do so for collecting and dropping people off.
John Mason
I note the member’s point about wheelchairs, disabled people and that kind of thing, and the committee took evidence on that. That would not just apply to community transport providers, would it? It could also apply to taxis, relatives, and a few other people. Would that be handled by your amendment?
Rachael Hamilton
I believe that Jamie Greene’s amendment could take care of that but I am not 100 per cent sure. My amendment is specifically about community transport providers.
Sandra White
John Mason’s first sentence was about where the vehicles are supposed to go, but my question is, where are the people supposed to go? That is the point of this part of the bill.
I accept what John Mason and Jamie Greene said about exceptions. We have to look at that.
I agree entirely with Mike Rumbles’s amendments. They are sensible, although I am not sure about the point about 1.5m because some pavements are not even 1.5m wide. Perhaps, as Jamie Greene said, that part is too prescriptive.
We have to look very carefully at exemptions. It was said earlier that the provision should be Scotland-wide but councils should be able to make exemptions, and they are best placed to do that. I gave an example of the colony houses in Edinburgh, where it is practically impossible to park.
In my constituency, some places have three or four cars. They park on the pavement and it does not just prevent people from walking on that pavement; it inhibits emergency services. There are some places in my area where emergency services cannot get down the street because of the number of cars that are parked on overflowing pavements. It is a double whammy for certain areas.
On the whole, I think that what Mike Rumbles was saying was sensible. We have to consider exemptions, whatever they might be. I do not know whether the 1.5m point is correct.
On amendment 302, I worry that, if we give some people a tiny amount, they will take a mile. They could be sitting on a pavement for quite a long time.
Mike Rumbles
We are trying to say that the 1.5m is the gap. If there is not a 1.5m gap, people should not be parking there.
Sandra White
What you are saying about the amendments is absolutely correct, but would it be too prescriptive for other areas? Local councils will make up their minds, but if the pavements are too small there cannot be a 1.5m gap. I completely understand that and support the amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles.
20:15Rachael Hamilton
I take your point entirely. However, what is reasonable for the process of dropping off and collecting someone who is disembarking with a wheelchair? We have to be aware that that is a difficult process for some individuals, particularly community transport providers who are offering that service.
Sandra White
The community transport providers in my area have two people to take the wheelchair off. Somebody gets out and takes out the wheelchair and the person. I have never seen community transport park on the pavement in my area, which is pretty busy with various old folks homes and so on, as are other areas.
I see the provision as being about allowing people to have the right to walk on the pavements, regardless. People have become so fond of their cars that they would park in their living room if they got the chance. As I said at the beginning, when Graham Simpson was here, the approach is not about punitive measures but about educating people. Some of the people we are talking about have driveways, but they park in front of them even with the dropped kerbs.
We need to educate drivers that people who do not have a car and are disabled or whatever have as much right to walk about where they live as drivers have to drive about. We have to be careful not to say that the car is king, which has always been said, and to think about the people who are walking on the pavements—or attempting to. I take on board the point that Jamie Greene and John Mason about looking at exemptions. That is important, but I am sure that it will be covered by local authorities at a later stage.
The Convener
It is now my brief opportunity to comment. I want to talk to amendment 4. Jackie Baillie helpfully provided a picture showing the overhang of a vehicle on a pavement, which is something that I have been particularly conscious of, and I support the principle of ensuring that pavement width is 1.5m. The problem is that that is not always achievable. For example, there are areas where, unlike in Edinburgh, bins are on the pavements and cause obstructions, and if you go down Wellington Street in Edinburgh, not far from Parliament, you will see hedges that overgrow the pavement by perhaps half a metre, further squeezing people over to where cars are parked on the edge.
My other point is that for people who are cycling, one of the nice things about where cars are parked at the moment is that they do not have to go over the speed humps, which often forces them into the path of cars. I have genuine concerns, although not with Jackie Baillie’s aspiration, which I think is right. My concerns are about enforcement, which will be difficult, and about the unintended consequences relating to other people who are misusing the pavement, because the amendment reflects purely on the cars. I ask that that is borne in mind. The restriction that amendment 4 would bring in would not place the obligation on the other people who are misusing the pavement to keep it clear for the 1.5m that I think we are all striving to achieve. Therefore, I will not be supporting amendment 4.
As no other members wish to speak, I call on the cabinet secretary. I am reliably informed that he will be giving a short response on the amendments.
Michael Matheson
As you will appreciate, convener, with some 33 amendments in the group I have a considerable amount to say. However, in covering the issues, I will say less than the people who have been speaking to their amendments. I will avoid taking interventions, in order to speed up the process. Members should keep that in mind.
Amendment 4, in the name of Jackie Baillie, seeks to extend the pavement parking ban to parked vehicles overhanging pavements by “more than 20 centimetres”. I acknowledge the reasoning behind the amendment, but in my view it goes too far. It is not necessarily the case that vehicles overhanging by 20cm will give rise to access or safety issues or, indeed, that it will be practically avoidable for motorists.
Options such as wheel stops in parking bays are available to local authorities to limit overhanging. Where overhanging clearly causes an obstruction and is therefore a safety or access issue, that constitutes an offence under sections 59(2) and 129(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
I move on to pavement widths. In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that motorists parking on the pavement under an exception should have to leave a minimum of 1.5m of pavement space to enable free movement of pedestrians. However, amendment 1, in the name of John Mason, would go further by enabling all motorists to park on the pavement provided that they leave 1.5m for pedestrian access. The intention of this part of the bill is to introduce a national and consistently enforced ban on pavement parking, subject to local discretion on exemptions. In my view, local authorities are best placed to decide where roads should be exempt from the prohibition, taking account of carriageway and pavement widths, road construction and access issues. Amendment 1 would fundamentally undermine that approach.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 292 and consequential amendment 295 seek to broaden the discretion that is afforded to local authorities in making exemption orders by removing the requirement that streets that are to be exempt possess characteristics that are set out in the ministerial directions, which are currently being developed in conjunction with local authorities. Although local authority discretion over exemptions is important, a degree of national consistency will ensure that the bill’s policy aims are not undermined through excessive use of exemptions. I therefore cannot support amendment 292.
Amendment 295 removes the definition of “carriageway” from section 43 and appears to be consequential to amendment 292, which seeks to remove section 43(2), in which the term “carriageway” is used. However, I wonder whether that is a mistake, given that the term also appears in Jamie Greene’s amendment 293.
The direction setting out the characteristics will include the consideration of carriageway and pavement width measurements so as to ensure that, if there is a street through which the passage of emergency vehicles could be hindered by the introduction of the pavement parking prohibition, that street can be included in the local authority’s exemption order. I therefore do not consider that there is a need for amendment 293, which seeks to put in the bill a duty for local authorities to consider exemptions to allow the passage of emergency vehicles.
Amendment 117, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeks to prevent local authorities from exempting pavements from the ban if vehicles that are parked on those pavements would leave less than 1.5m for pedestrians to pass. In my view, that rigid approach does not give local authorities enough flexibility in relation to, for example, historic streets with narrow footways and carriageways where a minimum of 1.5m could not be achieved without hindering the passage of vehicles on the carriageway.
Amendment 294, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to remove the requirement that exemption orders may not be subject to conditions. Although I again acknowledge the importance of local authority discretion, an ability to place an unspecified variety of conditions on exemptions is likely to undermine the consistency and simplicity of the prohibitions and their enforcement, which I consider to be key to their effectiveness.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 296 and consequential amendment 297 seek to impose on the Scottish ministers a requirement to prescribe in regulations the form of the traffic signs that are to be used in connection with exemption orders under section 43. Both those amendments are unnecessary, because the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 at sections 64(1) and (2) already gives the Scottish ministers a regulation-making power to prescribe traffic signs, including traffic signs for exemption orders, under section 43. My officials are working on the design of those signs in order that suitable amendments to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 will be brought forward to prescribe them.
Section 47(3) contains an exhaustive list of exceptions from the parking prohibitions where such undesirable parking is necessary in the course of the performance of a number of public services. The integrity of the prohibitions relies on the list being strictly limited and nationally consistent. I therefore cannot support amendment 298, in the name of Jamie Greene, as it seeks to give local authorities the ability to add unlimited further exemptions to the list.
The effect of amendments 299 and 304, in the name of Colin Smyth, would be that vehicles that are left unattended cannot take advantage of the exceptions in sections 47(3) and (6). In many circumstances, it would be impossible for the vehicle driver at whom these exceptions are targeted—such as a delivery driver or postal worker—to undertake their duties if they were not permitted to leave their vehicle unattended, for at least a brief period. That restriction is completely impractical and I therefore cannot support it.
The amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles take account of the committee’s concerns about the obstruction of pavements when motorists are parking under the exceptions in section 47(3). Obstructive or dangerous parking can and does cause serious problems for everyone and puts the safety of pedestrians and motorists in jeopardy. The amendments ensure that there is a reasonable and practical balance between the needs of those who are parked in the majority of circumstances that are otherwise excepted under section 47, and the needs and safety of pedestrians. They put in place a clear and consistent requirement that the majority of exceptions under section 47 apply only if
“1.5 metres of the pavement”
is left for pedestrian passage. That should facilitate effective enforcement and tackle the issue of obstruction. I therefore fully support the amendments in this group that have been lodged by Mike Rumbles.
Amendment 305, in the name of Colin Smyth, aims to achieve a similar outcome for the delivery and loading exception in section 47(6). I support the principle behind the amendment, but the amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles tackle the issue more effectively, and do so consistently across the majority of exceptions in section 47. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 305.
However, I cannot support the principle behind amendments 129, 139, 139A and 139B, in the name of Colin Smyth, which seek to remove the delivery and loading exception from the face of the bill, and instead give ministers the power to set out a similar exception in regulations. I have listened to the views of the committee and a range of stakeholders on this exception. It is important to note the views of the road haulage and delivery industries as part of the dialogue. There is also a need to strike a balance to allow businesses in Scotland to continue to operate, while protecting the accessibility of our pavements. As I have already mentioned, the amendments that have been lodged by Mike Rumbles would improve the provisions as introduced, and would safeguard the accessibility of pavements. I am not convinced that ministers could make any provision in regulations to improve what is already set out in the bill.
Amendment 303, in the name of Jamie Greene, would remove the 20-minute maximum waiting period from the delivery and loading exception, so that a vehicle parked on a pavement or double parked under that exception could remain parked for longer than 20 minutes, if it could be shown that it was necessary for the delivery, collection, loading or unloading to take place. The exception in section 47(6) offers a limited relaxation of the prohibition for short-term parking only. It was never intended to allow for longer-term stays. If parking for extended periods is required, delivery and loading vehicles should seek alternatives to parking on the pavement or double parking. I have serious concerns that the legal effect of amendment 303 would be to allow parking for deliveries for an unlimited and unspecified period, which would fundamentally undermine the intention that underlies this exception and the pavement and double parking prohibitions more generally.
Amendment 300, in the name of Jamie Greene, would allow anyone to park on a pavement for an undefined time period while they collect or drop off someone
“who is disabled, vulnerable, or has impaired mobility”.
As amendment 300 does not provide any definition of the terms “vulnerable” or “impaired mobility”, the exception would be ambiguous and could be very broadly construed and give rise to uncertainty. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment as drafted. However, I acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the access needs of disabled people are taken into account in the operation of the prohibitions and I therefore commit to considering, in advance of stage 3, whether any further amendments may usefully be made to safeguard those needs.
20:30Amendment 301, in the name of Jamie Greene, and amendment 302, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would exempt, respectively, taxi drivers or private hire vehicle drivers and community bus services from the pavement parking and double parking prohibitions. I am not persuaded that the needs of taxi and private hire drivers differ significantly from the needs of anybody else who needs to collect and drop off on streets where the prohibitions are in force. Accepting amendment 301 would create an unjustified and potentially very broad new exemption and would undermine the consistent application of the prohibitions.
I have somewhat more sympathy with amendment 302, which relates to community buses, but I cannot support an amendment that would permit those large vehicles to park on pavements, particularly given the damage that they might cause to the pavement in doing so and the safety and access problems that might arise. However, I am happy to consider before stage 3 whether community buses should be permitted to double park in limited circumstances.
Amendment 306, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to remove the requirement for a police constable to be in uniform when granting permission for a parking prohibition to be disapplied. I am concerned that removing the requirement for a police constable to be in uniform could create confusion and uncertainty among road users as to how a police constable can be identified and on what authority any direction is being applied. I therefore cannot support amendment 306.
Amendment 307, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to remove the requirement for persons parking on the pavement for the purpose of saving a life or responding to another similar emergency to be so parked for no longer than is necessary for that purpose. Although I acknowledge the need for flexibility in the provisions to enable drivers to respond to life-threatening emergencies, there is a need for proportionality in how even an exception of that kind is applied. The amendment would in effect allow a person who had parked on a pavement or double parked in order to respond to a threat to life to remain so parked indefinitely after the threat had been addressed. I consider that that goes a bit too far against the grain of the prohibitions, so I cannot support amendment 307.
Amendment 308, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to provide powers for local authority officers to allow pavement and double parking in circumstances in which they deem it to be reasonable. Although reasonable local authority discretion is a thread running through part 4, consistency and certainty are fundamental to effective enforcement and to gaining public trust in the fairness of that enforcement. Allowing discretionary powers for local authority enforcement officers to permit pavement and double parking in undefined circumstances would be far too subjective an approach and would threaten to seriously undermine the policy intent of a national ban and public acceptance of it.
Amendment 309, in the name of Jamie Greene, seeks to require the Scottish ministers to consult local authorities and other persons as they consider appropriate when modifying any of the exceptions in section 47. As the committee will be aware, the Scottish ministers ensured that all local authorities and interested groups were consulted via the parking standards group, which was set up during the consultation process on the parking provisions in the bill. The group is continuing to meet regularly to consider the parking standards guidance, and the Scottish Government is fully committed to that process. I am not persuaded that a statutory consultation duty would add anything to that well-established process.
As I mentioned at the outset, the many issues that are raised by the amendments in this group are important. I am grateful to members for their careful work in lodging them and for their contribution to the debate. However, for all the reasons that I have set out, the only amendments in the group that I can support are those that have been lodged by Mike Rumbles. If those amendments are pressed to a vote, I urge the committee to support them. I invite other members not to move their amendments in the group. If they are moved, I ask the committee to vote against them.
The Convener
I invite Jackie Baillie to wind up the debate and to press or seek leave to withdraw amendment 4.
Jackie Baillie
Convener, you will be pleased to know that I do not intend to respond to every amendment in the group—I think that that would test the committee’s patience somewhat.
I note the cabinet secretary’s comments on amendment 4. If I picked him up right, he was suggesting that the provisions already exist, so there is no need for the amendment. That being the case, I suggest that, in the guidance on pavement parking that he is likely to provide to local authorities and the police, he includes reference to overparking. If he does that, I will be content not to press amendment 4. That would be the practical solution.
Michael Matheson
I am happy to do that.
Jackie Baillie
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes my comments, convener.
Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 1, 116 and 287 to 289 not moved.
Amendment 290 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 290 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 290 disagreed to.
Amendment 291 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 291 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 291 disagreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
Section 43—Exemption orders
Amendments 292 and 293 not moved.
Amendment 117 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 117 disagreed to.
Amendments 294, 295 and 118 not moved.
Section 43 agreed to.
Section 44—Exemption orders: form and procedure
Amendment 119 not moved.
Section 44 agreed to.
Section 45—Exemption orders: traffic signs
Amendments 296, 297 and 120 not moved.
Section 45 agreed to.
Section 46 agreed to.
Section 47—Exceptions to parking prohibitions
Amendment 121 not moved.
The Convener
Cabinet secretary, you are the only one who will speak on this group, unless other members wish to speak, which they may well do. I do not mean to be rude, but I ask you to indicate how long you might take to put your points to us.
Michael Matheson
Three minutes.
The Convener
In that case, I will press on.
Amendment 122, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 123, 125, 127, 130, 132, 135 to 137, 141, 142, 144, 147, 149, 151, 154, 156, 159 and 160. I point out that if amendment 129, which has already been debated in a previous group, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 130.
Michael Matheson
The committee’s stage 1 report expressed concern that the issue of parking across dropped kerbs at pedestrian and other recognised crossing places was not included in the bill when it was first introduced to Parliament. Evidence from stakeholders highlighted that parking at dropped kerbs is perceived to be a significant barrier to accessibility in many streets.
As members will know, I consider inconsiderate and obstructive parking to be a serious problem for everyone, as it puts the safety of pedestrians and other road users in jeopardy. As was explained at stage 1, we received powers via the Scotland Act 2016 to legislate on parking at dropped kerbs. However, we needed to be clear about the impact of introducing such a ban in urban areas and to explore whether it could be introduced via secondary legislation. We have listened to the views of the committee, parliamentarians and stakeholders, who have highlighted the wider impact that the issue has on vulnerable road users as well as on the local economy.
Amendment 141 prohibits the parking of vehicles at dropped footways. That encompasses both where the footway has been dropped and where the carriageway has been raised, where the purpose of either is to assist pedestrians or cycles to cross the carriageway.
Amendment 142 makes it clear that the new parking prohibition does not apply to kerbs that have been dropped for the purpose of accessing driveways or garages, both residential and commercial. The ban will also not apply where a vehicle has been parked
“for the purpose of saving life or responding to another similar emergency”.
Amendments 144, 147, 149, 151, 154 and 156 make provision for the implementation and enforcement of the new prohibition to match the existing prohibitions on pavement parking and double parking in the bill. That includes enabling local authorities to issue penalty-charge notices when motorists have contravened the ban.
The remaining amendments in the group all flow from the new prohibition. Amendments 122, 123, 125, 127, 130, 132 and 135 to 137 make it clear that the exceptions to the parking prohibitions that are outlined in section 47 apply only to the pavement parking prohibition and the double parking prohibition, and not to the new prohibition.
Amendments 159 and 160 respectively provide a definition of “dropped footway parking prohibition” for the purposes of this part of the bill.
I ask the committee to support all the amendments in the group.
I move amendment 122.
The Convener
Cabinet secretary, I will not ask you to wind up—I will move straight on, on the basis that you will have said all that you wanted to say.
We come now to a series of votes, and once we have completed it, that is where we will stop for today. I will go through the amendments carefully to ensure that I get this right as we come to the end of a very long day.
Amendment 122 agreed to.
Amendment 123 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 124 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.
Amendment 125 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 298 not moved.
Amendment 299 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 299 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 10, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 299 disagreed to.
20:45Amendment 126 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.
Amendment 127 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 300 to 302 not moved.
Amendment 128 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.
The Convener
I call amendment 129, in the name of Colin Smyth.
Colin Smyth
Despite Mike Rumbles being a passionate advocate of amendment 129 throughout the process, I will not move it. I am sure that he will be disappointed that he will not have the opportunity to follow through on his previous support.
Mike Rumbles
Agreed.
Amendment 129 not moved.
Amendment 130 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 131 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.
Amendment 303 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 303 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 303 disagreed to.
Amendments 304 and 305 not moved.
Amendment 132 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 133 and 134 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.
Amendment 135 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
The Convener
I call amendment 306, in the name of Jamie Greene. Jamie Green to move or not move.
Jamie Greene
I am sorry; I have lost the will to live.
The Convener
In fairness, we have moved quite quickly, so I will ask the question again. Jamie Greene to move or not move amendment 306.
Amendment 306 not moved.
Amendment 136 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 307 not moved.
Amendment 137 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 138 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.
Amendment 139 not moved.
Amendment 140 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.
Amendments 308 and 309 not moved.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
After section 47
Amendments 141 and 142 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 48—Imposition of penalty charges
Amendment 143 not moved.
Amendment 144 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
The Convener
The good news is that this is as far as we can go today. We will continue next week.
I thank all committee members, and the other members who have attended today’s proceedings, for taking part in the two sessions. Amendments to the remaining sections of the bill can still be lodged until noon tomorrow.
Jamie Greene
Convener, can you confirm that amendments to up to and including section 48 and the rest of the bill can still be lodged? Is the deadline tomorrow noon for amendments to all remaining sections?
The Convener
Any remaining amendments to section 48 and amendments to provisions after section 58, up to the end of section 68—that is, part 5—should be lodged by noon tomorrow. Does that clarify the position?
Jamie Greene
I am trying to establish whether any amendments on the workplace parking levy have to be lodged by tomorrow noon.
The Convener
Yes.
It has been a long session, and I thank everyone for their attention.
Meeting closed at 20:54.12 June 2019
Third meeting on amendments
Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 19 June 2019:
Third meeting on amendments transcript
The Convener
I ask those people who have just come in to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent.
Under item 4, we will continue our consideration of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and his supporting officials. I also welcome the non-committee members who are present.
I will briefly explain the procedure. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in a group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my eye. If he has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.
Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press it, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee will immediately move to a vote on the amendment.
If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
I remind everyone that only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. I remind committee members to please keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote—members should put their hands right up in the air because otherwise it is difficult for the clerks to record the vote. I am sure that everyone will be looking around the table to make sure that everyone else is voting.
The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We will not go beyond amendments to part 5 of the bill today.
Section 48—Imposition of penalty charges
The Convener
The first group of amendments is on enforcement of parking prohibitions. Amendment 145, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 311 to 313.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
The bill as introduced allows a person employed by a local authority, or a person employed by a body with which a local authority has made enforcement arrangements, to issue penalty charge notices in connection with breaches of parking prohibitions. Amendment 145 is a technical amendment that will ensure that authorised enforcement officers can either be directly employed or appointed and engaged other than under a contract of employment.
Colin Smyth’s amendment 311 seeks to enable regulations to be made to exempt local authorities without decriminalised parking enforcement powers from the need to enforce the parking prohibitions in the bill. Amendment 312 would then permit regulations to set out alternative arrangements for the enforcement of the parking prohibitions in the bill in those local authority areas.
As the bill sets out national parking prohibitions that will apply consistently across Scotland, I do not consider it appropriate to have a power to make separate arrangements for those local authorities that have not yet applied for DPE powers. Such an approach would risk creating confusion and undermine the consistent national enforcement of the new prohibitions.
It is also unclear from amendment 312 what is intended by way of alternative enforcement arrangements for the non-DPE areas, or why the enforcement arrangements set out in the bill may not be appropriate for local authorities without DPE powers. As I have previously stated, local authorities have the option either to contract enforcement via private companies or to enter into an arrangement with a neighbouring local authority for the purposes of enforcement.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 313 seeks to amend section 54 so that it states that when a local authority enters into arrangements with third parties in connection with the performance of any of the local authority’s functions regarding the issuing of penalty charges, enforcement and removing, moving or disposing of vehicles, the local authority will still be responsible for those functions.
Amendment 313 is unnecessary, as the bill confers statutory duties on local authorities. Although the bill enables local authorities to contract out the performance of some of those duties to third parties, that does not in any way absolve the local authority from legal liability for its statutory obligations, as a matter of basic legal principle.
I therefore ask the committee to support my amendment 145. I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 311 and 312, and Jamie Greene not to move amendment 313. If those amendments are moved, I urge the committee to reject them.
I move amendment 145.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
Amendment 311, in my name, would remove enforcement duties from councils that do not have decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Those councils will be required to enforce pavement parking regulations—in other words, just one type of parking violation—without having the power to enforce others. They will be able to ticket a car that is parked on a pavement but not one that is parked on a double yellow line right next to it. In practical terms, some councils might have to set up an entirely new team to undertake that one task. That seems completely absurd.
Enforcement in relation to pavement parking violations should be in line with enforcement in relation to other parking violations. In areas that have decriminalised parking enforcement, councils are responsible; in other areas, the police are responsible. If the Government’s position is that new offences should be enforced only by councils and not the police, why is it not dealing with councils that have not decriminalised parking enforcement, instead of simply creating an anomaly?
Members will recall that the committee urged the Government to consider the onerous process for councils of decriminalising parking enforcement. I am disappointed that the Government has not done so. In the absence of action from the Government, I lodged amendment 311.
It is not clear whether enforcement responsibilities would automatically fall to the police if they were to be removed from councils, so amendment 312 would simply allow the Government to make regulations to clarify that enforcement should be carried out by the police.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
The cabinet secretary eloquently described the purpose and intention of my short amendment 313 and I was pleased to hear that he thinks that there is a strong legal basis for local authorities’ responsibility for administering enforcement. Amendment 313 really stemmed from a conversation that I had about concerns about the contracting out of enforcement to third parties, such as happens with private parking, and how the process might be administered. On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s comments and assurances, for which I thank him, I will not move amendment 313.
I support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 145.
The amendments in Colin Smyth’s name raise an interesting point, which we might discuss later when we come to my amendment 316, on enforcement of parking violations around schools. Colin Smyth has raised a wider issue about not what is or is not legal but who enforces what and how easy it will be for wardens in decriminalised parking areas and the police to enforce regulations that arise from the bill, whether we are talking about pavement parking, double parking or inconsiderate and obstructive parking in our towns. We will support amendments 311 and 312.
Michael Matheson
I emphasise that the decision to decriminalise the enforcement of parking regulation in a local authority area is a matter for the local authority. As it stands, some 21 local authorities have decriminalised the process. Another two are presently considering that approach. We encourage the other local authorities to consider doing the same, but it is entirely in their gift to take forward the process, which is a fairly straightforward one.
It is important that we have national consistency in the approach that we take in these matters, which is what amendment 145 seeks to achieve.
Amendment 145 agreed to.
08:15The Convener
Jamie Greene wants to say something about amendment 146, in the name of Graham Simpson.
Jamie Greene
I have spoken to Mr Simpson and, given the lack of support for his amendment 115, he does not want to move his other amendments in the group in which amendment 115 was the lead amendment, including amendment 146. I am happy to list the amendments or to leave it at that.
Amendment 146 not moved.
Amendment 147 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
After section 48
The Convener
The next group is on parking prohibitions penalty charges: application of penalty charges. Amendment 310, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 314, 157 and 315.
Jamie Greene
These short amendments deal with the penalty charges that will be collected as a result of the prohibitions in the bill. Amendment 310 sets out a framework for how I think local authorities should use the revenue.
During discussion of low-emission zones, there was, I think, wide acceptance that revenues that are raised from the zones should be put to good use. However, with low-emission zones, there is a structure for setting objectives; the revenues that are raised will be linked to those objectives. That is the right approach—we all agreed on that when considering the related amendments. Given that there is a lack of objectives in the bill regarding prohibition of pavement parking and double parking, there is nothing on which to peg responsibility for where that revenue will go.
In subsections (a), (b) and (c) of amendment 310, I have listed three categories—
“public transport services ... roads, and ... other transport infrastructure”—
to link the money back to the transport theme. That is simply to ensure that the local authorities that raise the money spend it on improving public transport, roads and transport infrastructure, and that the money does not get sucked into a black hole of local authority finance, which is perhaps the case with other forms of parking levies or charges that have been introduced. That is the premise of amendment 310.
Amendments 314 and 315 are technical consequential amendments to amendment 310.
We are happy to support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 157.
I move amendment 310.
Michael Matheson
Section 55 of the bill will enable the Scottish ministers to make regulations regarding
“the keeping of accounts by local authorities in connection with”
the enforcement of parking prohibitions, and regarding
“the purposes for which a surplus”
in those accounts may be used.
Amendment 157, which is in my name, is a technical provision that will ensure that the regulations may make provision for publication of statements of accounts. That will ensure consistency in what the statements of accounts contain, and is in keeping with the regulation-making power for local authority accounts for low-emission zones under section 22.
Amendment 310, which is in Jamie Greene’s name, would constrain how local authorities could use the income that would be derived from enforcement of the parking prohibitions in the bill, and would provide that the income could be used only for certain transport-related purposes in the local authority’s area.
Amendments 314 and 315 would make related changes to Scottish ministers’ powers to make regulations about local authority accounts. They would remove the power to specify in regulations how a surplus in a local authority account could be applied, and would add a new power for ministers to specify the information that the accounts must contain about how local authorities have complied with their duties under amendment 310.
I have sympathy with what Jamie Greene seeks to achieve with his amendments. It is my intention that, in making regulations under section 55 of the bill, it would be specified that any surplus in accounts that are connected with enforcement of parking prohibitions will be required to be used for specified transport-related purposes.
In my view, the flexibility that is afforded by regulations is important in order to ensure that the transport purposes for which funds may be used are not drawn too narrowly, and to allow scope to respond to changing priorities. That said, I am happy to consider before stage 3 whether it can be made clearer in the bill that the purposes that may be specified in regulations are limited to transport-related purposes.
I therefore ask Jamie Greene to seek to withdraw amendment 310 and not to move amendments 314 and 315. I ask that the committee reject them, if he does press amendment 310 and move the other amendments. I also ask the committee to support my amendment 157.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I am out of step with all my political colleagues and with almost every member of the Parliament in that, as a matter of principle, I oppose hypothecation. That is because I believe that it is perfectly proper that funds are raised and penalties imposed for public purposes, and that they should be allocated to things that serve a public purpose regardless of where the money came from.
There is also a practical issue about hypothecation, which applies in this case, as it applies in others. The success of penalty charges should lead to their raising no revenue whatsoever, which would impoverish the practical purposes for which one would hypothecate money.
However, I understand that the introduction of hypothecation in policy areas is often a lever for persuading the general public that the policy intention is a good one because the money will be spent for good purposes. I have no objection to charges being made for services that are rendered, of course.
I do not intend to make an issue of this when we come to make a decision, but I have a permanent objection to hypothecation. I always feel uncomfortable about this sort of suggestion and will continue to do so, although I recognise that there are probably only two other members in the entire Parliament who agree with me.
The Convener
I ask Jamie Greene to wind up, and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 157.
Jamie Greene
I thank Stewart Stevenson for his comments, although following them, I am still entirely unclear about whether he supports my amendments. It is rather early in the morning to be talking about hypothecation policy. However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary is all over the matter.
I appreciate the feedback. I lodged my amendments earnestly and in good faith to try to give the public a general message that the revenues that will be raised from prohibitions will be put to good use. I think that Mr Stevenson alluded to that.
As we discuss low-emission zones, it is important that we take the public with us on a positive journey in order to improve driver behaviour, and it is important that they see the consequences in terms of financial penalties and where the revenue from them might be spent.
I appreciate that putting into a bill a prescriptive list about how money can be spent might come across as a constraint, but that is not the intention. The intention is to have a narrow focus of guidance on how the money will be spent. If the cabinet secretary and his team are willing to discuss with me and others before stage 3 how we can use the bill to strengthen that, so that it is not just up to the whim of regulation—we have not seen what regulations might state, so it is hard to tell whether they will meet the intention of my amendments—my office and I will be happy to have a productive conversation about how we can come up with some words to that effect for stage 3. On that premise, I seek to withdraw amendment 310.
Amendment 310, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 49—Enforcement of parking prohibitions
Amendment 148 not moved.
Amendment 149 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on parking prohibitions penalty charges: accessibility of information. Amendment 217, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendment 218.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
It was recently drawn to my attention that parking penalty notices in Glasgow lack plain English in relation to the right to challenge or appeal a notice. The right of appeal or to challenge a decision is an essential requirement of any such system.
The public are suspicious that local authorities are driven by revenue considerations in issuing tickets. Local authorities’ issuing of parking penalty notices through enforcement should not be perceived purely as a revenue issue. For fairness, they should design systems that make it relatively easy for those who believe that they have grounds on which to challenge their notice to do so.
I have visual evidence available to illustrate my point and I am happy to share it with the cabinet secretary. Parking notices are geared towards payment methods; there is just a tiny bit of small print on them that says:
“The Notice to Owner will also describe how to make formal representation regarding the issue of this Penalty Charge Notice.”
I recall that, in days gone by, grounds of appeal were also published, and notices would be clearer. I have gone as far as I can through the various stages, and nowhere is it said that people have the right to appeal and challenge: everything is geared towards payment.
I am probing the issue because I hope that the cabinet secretary will come with me on the point about making it relatively easy for people to see what their rights are.
My researchers checked the website to see how easy they would find it to find out how to appeal. The information is there, but it is not easy to find: it is not up front. People have the fundamental right to challenge a decision by a public body—even a parking notice.
Amendment 218 would ensure that such information would be accessible to people with disabilities.
I move amendment 217.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
I agree with amendment 217, but I have a question about the practical terms of amendment 218. The amendment says that regulations
“must include provision requiring that notification of a penalty charge is available in formats that are accessible to individuals who have a ... mental disability”.
Can Pauline McNeill explain how that would happen? I am not clear what she is asking for in the amendment.
The Convener
Perhaps we can come to that in the summing up.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 217 and 218 seek to introduce a requirement that regulations that are associated with enforcement of parking prohibitions will ensure that penalty charge notices contain information on how to appeal, and are
“available in formats that are accessible to individuals who have a sensory, physical or mental disability.”
I recognise the importance of making sure that the process of enforcement and appeals, including the information that is contained in penalty charge notices, is clear and transparent for everyone. I am happy to confirm that the regulations that will be made will make provision regarding reviews and appeals, including the grounds of review or appeal, in connection with imposition of penalty charges.
The design of the penalty charge notice that is currently used by 21 local authorities in Scotland already provides to the motorist information on how to appeal against the penalty charge notice, and what happens thereafter. It is intended that regulations that will be made under section 49(1) will provide that the content of penalty charge notices for parking prohibitions contains similar information. Therefore, I do not consider amendment 217 to be necessary.
On amendment 218, the regulations will also make provision on notification of a penalty charge, including the form, content and method of notification. There is ample flexibility in the regulation-making power in section 49(1) to ensure that accessibility requirements are taken into account.
In addition to that, the committee will be aware that under the Equality Act 2010, local authorities must make “reasonable adjustments” to remove barriers that might discriminate against disabled people. Such reasonable adjustments already include ensuring that penalty charge notices are available in accessible formats—for example, in large font or in Braille. I note, too, that the 2010 act already contains clear definitions of what is meant by “disability”, whereas amendment 218 does not.
08:30I ask Pauline McNeill to seek to withdraw amendment 217 and not to move amendment 218. I urge the committee not to support them, if the amendments are pressed.
Pauline McNeill
I thank Mike Rumbles for his question. Amendments 217 and 218 are aimed at addressing the issue that the cabinet secretary outlined, where sensory or other impairments might make it difficult for someone to understand how to go through the process of appeal. I am content with the cabinet secretary’s response and am pleased that the issue has been addressed in the bill.
Therefore, I seek to withdraw amendment 217.
Amendment 217, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 218 not moved.
Amendment 311 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 311 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 311 disagreed to.
Amendment 312 not moved.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
Section 50—Power to install approved devices
Amendment 150 not moved.
Amendments 151 and 152 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Section 51—Removal of motor vehicles parked contrary to parking prohibitions
Amendment 153 not moved.
Amendment 154 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Section 52—Moving motor vehicles parked contrary to parking prohibitions
Amendment 155 not moved.
Amendment 156 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
Section 54—Arrangements in connection with enforcement
Amendment 313 not moved.
Section 54 agreed to.
Section 55—Accounts
Amendment 314 not moved.
Amendment 157 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 315 not moved.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
Section 56 agreed to.
Section 57—Ministerial guidance
The Convener
The next group is entitled “Parking prohibitions: guidance”. Amendment 158, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group on its own.
Michael Matheson
Section 57 requires local authorities to have regard to ministerial guidance in exercising their functions under part 4 of the bill. The purpose of amendment 158 is to clarify that the parking standards guidance will apply to local authorities, regardless of whether the functions were conferred on them in their capacity as local authorities or as traffic authorities. On reflection since the bill’s introduction, we have deemed that it would be prudent to put that beyond doubt.
I move amendment 158.
Amendment 158 agreed to.
Section 57, as amended, agreed to.
Section 58—Interpretation of Part 4
Amendments 159 and 160 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 161 not moved.
The Convener
Amendment 162, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group on its own.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 162 is a technical amendment that seeks to ensure that, if a local authority is considering exempting a pavement from the pavement parking prohibition or looking to place a traffic sign or approved device, it should do so only with the consent of, or in conjunction with, the relevant traffic authority, should that not be the local authority. That will remove any ambiguity.
I move amendment 162.
Amendment 162 agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
After section 58
The Convener
The next group is on parking on a cycle track. Amendment 163, in the name of Colin Smyth, is the only amendment in the group.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 163 addresses an issue that arises from the decriminalisation of parking enforcement, which a number of local councils have raised with me. At last week’s committee meeting, the cabinet secretary confirmed that parking in cycle lanes is banned under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. However, there is a problem with enforcement of the ban. When a mandatory cycle lane has been introduced without a traffic regulation order, enforcement cannot be decriminalised. In practical terms, that means that, often, only the police are able to enforce the ban, even in areas with decriminalised parking enforcement, in which the council enforces other parking offences. That is a clear anomaly.
Parking in cycle lanes is a hazard and it is right that it is banned, but the ban is meaningless if it is not properly enforced. Although enforcement can be decriminalised through the use of a TRO, that places a significant burden on councils, simply to give them the power to enforce an existing prohibition. Amendment 163 seeks to address that by allowing local authorities to issue civil fines in relation to the ban. I have suggested regulations but, if members believe that there is a different way of achieving the same aim, I would be happy to discuss alternative approaches.
I move amendment 163.
Jamie Greene
I tried to lodge a similar amendment but the legislation team advised that Colin Smyth had beaten me to it. For that reason, I am happy to support amendment 163. However, if, technically, it is not the way to approach the issue, I would be happy to work with other parties and the cabinet secretary on suitable wording.
If Colin Smyth is minded not to press the amendment, I will not press it. However, he raises an important point. Parking on cycle lanes has become an issue and we have spoken at length about how we can address that through regulation. Using the bill as a method of addressing the issue is an important suggestion. We probably all share the concern over the practice, but it is a case of how we can ensure that it is properly addressed. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will enlighten us.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 163 calls for the insertion in the bill of a new part that relates to parking on a cycle track. I appreciate the intention behind Colin Smyth’s amendment to encourage more active travel, but the amendment is not required.
Amendment 163 seeks to amend section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 by inserting a new subsection 6A to confer powers on local authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices to motorists who park on a cycle track. However, the amendment is unnecessary as parking on a cycle track is already a criminal offence under section 129(6) of the 1984 act. If a local authority wishes to charge drivers for parking on cycle lanes, it can do so by obtaining decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Currently, 21 local authorities have those powers, and they can and do undertake enforcement restrictions on cycle tracks.
For completeness, I note that there are technical difficulties with the amendment in that it seeks to place the regulation-making power into section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, which deals with miscellaneous summary offences, despite the fact that the amendment does not seek to create a new offence. Instead, it seeks to enable regulations to be made that can confer a power on local authorities to charge motorists.
Furthermore, the amendment refers to fixed-penalty notices, but they can be issued in Scotland only by the procurator fiscal or a police constable. They are also backed with a power of criminal prosecution if unpaid. The appropriate term for a local authority charge is a penalty charge notice.
Even if those technical difficulties were resolved, I consider that the proposed amendment is not required because the powers already exist in criminal and civil law. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 163. If the amendment is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.
Jamie Greene
Are you confirming that any form of parking in any form of cycle lane that has not been allowed by a local authority’s decriminalised process is enforceable by either a police officer or a traffic warden? Does that include advisory cycle lanes and more statutorily formal types of cycle lane?
Michael Matheson
No. If the cycle lane is in an area that has not been decriminalised, it is a matter for the police to enforce. The police have the powers to deal with that. If it is in a decriminalised area, it is for the local authority to deal with. However, local authorities also have a responsibility to make sure that they have TROs in place for the enforcement of the ban. That is a legal requirement to make the provision enforceable in law. Local authorities must put in place a TRO so that they can issue a penalty charge notice.
Colin Smyth
The cabinet secretary has missed the point of amendment 163, and I would be happy if he wanted to intervene to clarify the position. My understanding—this has certainly been raised by a number of local authorities—is that where they have decriminalised parking, they cannot enforce the ban unless they have passed a TRO. A TRO is not required for a mandatory cycle lane, as far as I am aware. If the local authority has not passed a TRO, it cannot enforce—
Michael Matheson
For the local authority to enforce any provision under the decriminalised arrangements, it has to have a TRO in place. It has to have a legal basis on which to enforce the penalty. The local authority cannot simply issue penalty charges for anything that it chooses; it needs to have a legal basis for doing that. There is no getting round the fact that there needs to be a provision in place that gives the local authority the power to issue a penalty charge notice for an obstruction on a cycle way or in a part of the street that has a TRO in place. Local authorities cannot get round the fact that a TRO has to be in place to make the penalty enforceable.
Colin Smyth
I thank the cabinet secretary for that, but therein lies the anomaly. The Government allows a local authority to introduce a mandatory cycle lane without a TRO, but then says that if it does not have a TRO, it cannot enforce the cycle way.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Is the point not that if the local authority cannot enforce it, the police can, so somebody can enforce it?
Michael Matheson
That is correct.
Colin Smyth
The anomaly is that everything else in a local authority area, when it has been decriminalised, is a matter for the council, except for cycle lanes—
Michael Matheson
On that point—
Colin Smyth
Please let me finish the point. Why does the Government allow a local authority to have a mandatory cycle lane without a TRO if it is saying that the local authority must have a TRO in order to enforce a penalty for parking in the cycle lane? That is the question that the Government needs to answer.
08:45Michael Matheson
There is some confusion here. Councils need to have a TRO in place in order to be able to enforce a penalty charge notice. If a cycle lane is advisory, they do not need to have a TRO in place. If a cycle lane is obstructed, that is clearly an issue; the police can deal with that through criminal law. However, where it has been decriminalised, the council needs to have a TRO in place. That is how the process operates, and there is no way round it. If a council does not have a TRO in place for a parking restriction at schools, in effect, it could be in a position in which it could not legally enforce a penalty charge notice.
Colin Smyth
The committee has heard on a number of occasions about the challenges of the TRO process for local authorities. Indeed, one of the explanations that was given by the Government for not backing the Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Scotland) Bill was that it was going to look at enforcement on that.
The reality is that, with or without a TRO, parking in a mandatory cycle lane is banned. However, as it stands, that cannot be enforced by councils—even in areas with decriminalised parking enforcement—without a TRO. I think that there is an anomaly; I am happy not to press amendment 163 at this stage, in the hope that we can discuss a way forward, but I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at stage 3 if those issues are not addressed. Local councils have raised concerns and I hope that the Government will take them on board.
Amendment 163, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on workplace parking and the establishment and review of licensing schemes. Amendment 7, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 7A, 7D, 7B, 7C, 8, 8E, 8A, 8F, 8B, 8G, 8C, 8H, 8D, 9, 9A, 9C, 9B, 9D, 10, 10D, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10C, 10F, 10G, 11, 11A, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, 13A, 14, 14A, 26 and 318.
If amendment 8E is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 8A; if amendment 8B is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 8G; and if amendment 8G is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 8C—that is all due to pre-emptions. It will all become clearer when we get to that point.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to my amendments on the workplace parking levy. As the committee will be aware, there has been a lot of coverage of this issue over the past few months, much of it ill-informed. As we consider the amendments, it is important to focus on what they will do and the positive benefits that the workplace parking levy can yield.
Let us take a step back—we are facing a climate emergency, so we need as many tools as possible to be available to address it. No one is saying that the workplace parking levy alone will do that, but it is clear that we need as many levers as possible to be available.
Local authorities also need tools to manage transport in their areas and to raise revenue to help them to do that. My amendments are based on the principle of localism. It will be for local authorities to determine whether they wish to implement a workplace parking levy; there is no requirement to do so. I will pick up on the details of the proposals when I speak to subsequent amendments, but I will pick up on some key points first.
This is a power, not a duty; it will empower local authorities to act and to make decisions locally. Those decisions will have to be made within a framework set by primary legislation, regulations and guidance. The framework has the key underpinning of requirements for consultation, a local impact assessment, and the investment of funds raised from the levy in local transport projects identified in a local transport strategy.
Fundamentally, the proposals address issues that we all agree need to be addressed. The First Minister has declared a climate emergency and we recognise transport’s role in that.
I turn to the detail of my amendments. Amendment 7—together with amendment 9—will permit local authorities to put in place a licensing scheme requiring any person who provides workplace parking at their premises to hold a licence and to pay charges under that licence according to the number of parking places that are provided. It is a premises-based levy.
Local authorities that want to introduce a licensing scheme for workplace parking must have a local transport strategy and must consider that introducing the levy will facilitate the achievement of policies in that strategy. A criticism of the workplace parking levy is that it is simply a money-raising measure. That is not the case: the link to a local transport strategy means that a levy can be introduced only within a clearly articulated strategic context.
Amendment 8 defines what constitutes a workplace parking place. Workplace parking places are identified by reference to the reason for parking and who is parking. Accordingly, a workplace parking place is a parking place at any premises that is occupied for the purpose of attending a place where the person providing the parking place carries out a business. “Business” has a wide meaning and encompasses not only the carrying out of any trade, profession, vocation or undertaking but the provision of education and the exercise of public functions.
Only parking for business purposes, including parking by workers, agents and suppliers of the person providing the parking place, is covered. Parking in a purely personal capacity, such as parking when shopping at a local supermarket, is not covered.
Amendment 8 will give the Scottish ministers a power to vary the provisions by regulation. Such flexibility to respond to changing and future circumstances is necessary.
Amendment 10 is important, because it sets out the detailed requirements for consultation on a proposed scheme and impact assessments. There has been criticism of the lack of consultation on the proposal and the fact that there has been no impact assessment. I welcome the committee’s work through its evidence sessions and online survey. It was interesting to hear a nuanced and balanced argument from a range of views.
John Mason
If we agree to these amendments, the bill will only enable the approach; a council such as Glasgow City Council will then have to go through its own process to introduce a workplace parking levy. Will councils have to do their own consultations on their proposals?
John Finnie
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.
John Mason
Does John Finnie see any role for RTPs? Colin Smyth gave the example of people coming from one area into a city and paying the fee, while the place that they came from would not benefit. We also heard about the idea of the park-and-ride scheme in Nottingham, where the park and ride might be in a separate local authority area. Would that be a voluntary process? Does John Finnie not see the RTP as having any role in that?
09:00John Finnie
In any case, RTPs have an overarching role with regard to their constituent parts. However, the scheme is clear that my amendments will allow for joint working by local authorities. That is a better approach, because there are unintended consequences of RTPs. In addition, allowing powers to be exercisable concurrently by local authorities and RTPs could give rise to the potential for confusion and, indeed, duplication, which none of us wants.
Amendment 9C, in the name of Mike Rumbles, attempts to introduce the precondition that a local authority can make a scheme only if it
“is satisfied that there is an adequate level of public transport services in its area”.
Superficially, that looks attractive. However, it falls down in a number of ways. For example, how does one define
“an adequate level of public transport services”?
Moreover, improving public transport might be the objective in the local transport strategy that the scheme is being set up to support. Fundamentally, the focus should be on local decision making.
I have a number of brief comments still to make, convener. I appreciate that this is time consuming.
The Convener
I am listening patiently—please continue.
John Finnie
Colin Smyth’s amendment 9B would make ministerial approval a precondition of a scheme, which goes against the very principle of localism upon which the scheme is founded. The power of local accountable decision making is important and underpins my amendments.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 9D seeks to impose a number of conditions on a scheme, ranging from constraints on the making of a scheme to restrictions on how the scheme operates. The amendment is a classic case of unnecessary micromanagement. What is wrong with local authorities making decisions on the basis of impact assessments and full consultation?
Jamie Greene’s amendment 10D calls for a range of reports to be prepared by the local authority. However, subsection (4) of the proposed new section that my amendment 10 will insert already requires an assessment of the effects on “the environment” and on
“persons who may have to pay charges”.
I cannot see what amendment 10D would add to that.
Colin Smyth’s amendment 10A would require local authorities to “hold a referendum” on whether proposed workplace parking licence schemes should proceed, and his amendment 10B would give the Scottish ministers the powers to make provisions about the franchise, conduct and administration of a referendum. I ask Colin Smyth why he has such little faith in our local authorities. Under my amendments, local authorities would have to consult on the scheme, and they are—as we are—subject to the referendum of the ballot box.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 10E would require the statement of scheme objectives to say how the authority
“intends to use the net proceeds of the scheme”.
However, subsection (3)(c) of the proposed new section that my amendment 10 will insert would already require a local authority to set out
“how it intends to apply any net proceeds of the scheme”.
Amendment 10E would therefore be an unnecessary duplication.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 10F and Peter Chapman’s amendment 10G seek to add specific categories of assessment that a local authority must carry out. Jamie Greene’s amendment would require assessment for local businesses and island communities. Peter Chapman’s amendment would require it for local businesses and island communities as well as for local authority revenue, schools, public bodies, other statutory bodies and health boards. Given that the requirement to carry out an assessment of those who will be affected by the levy is already in my amendment, it is not clear what those amendments would add.
Mike Rumbles’s amendment 10C would require an assessment of the effects of the proposed scheme on
“the displacement of vehicles and the resulting effect on residents in, and in the vicinity of, the area to which the proposal relates”.
That is an important issue, which I would expect to be picked up by the assessment of the scheme proposals on the environment, which my amendment already requires.
Amendment 12B from Jamie Greene would allow the Scottish Parliament, by a majority vote, to cause a local inquiry to be held into a proposal for a workplace parking licensing scheme. However, again, that is a local authority matter that is best dealt with at local authority level—we need to respect that.
Amendment 13A from Jamie Greene appears to do two things. It would remove the power of Scottish ministers to
“make, or require or permit workplace parking schemes to include, provision about reviews of, and appeals against, decisions in relation to workplace parking licences”.
As a result, there would be no provision for such reviews and appeals.
Secondly, it would remove the offence of intentionally providing
“false or misleading information in or in connection with”
licence applications, which means that there would be no specific offence relating to fraudulent statements in licence applications. I have to ask whether Jamie Greene really wants to remove rights of appeal and encourage fraudulent statements.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 14A seeks to remove the requirement that workplace parking licences
“specify the maximum number of ... vehicles which may be parked at those premises”
that are subject to the licence. That provision is important for establishing licensing requirements. In order to run a scheme, local authorities will have to specify the number of vehicles as a key part of establishing the charge that is due. Amendment 14A would cut across that and, as such, I cannot support it.
Jamie Greene’s amendment 318 would introduce a power for local authority residents to “petition the local authority” for a review of a workplace parking licensing scheme. If a petition is
“signed by more than 20% of residents of the ... area, the authority must carry out a review”.
In practice, what does that represent? The amendment appears to be an attempt to open another front in the campaign against workplace parking levies.
My proposals are founded on principles of localism and are underpinned by consultation, requirements to carry out impact assessments and, fundamentally, the ballot box. I believe that those are the fundamentals that we should be guided by and, with such factors underpinning workplace parking schemes, amendment 318 is at best unnecessary and at worst a way for a minority to frustrate the successful operation of schemes by local authorities.
I have addressed all the amendments in the group.
I move amendment 7.
The Convener
I understand that you had a lot of ground to cover but, by my calculations, if we all take a similar length of time, we will not be finished before the Planning (Scotland) Bill session in the chamber this afternoon. Bearing in mind that Mr Finnie is seeking to introduce a major amendment, I gave him a certain amount of leeway, but I ask members to remember that others wish to speak, so their contributions should be as concise as possible.
I call Mr Rumbles to move amendment 7A.
Mike Rumbles
I will be very brief. I am disappointed by what I have heard from John Finnie. There are some very constructive amendments here, but he is opposing them all.
With amendment 7A, I am trying to avoid the risk of judicial review of the legislation, because I am well aware that in planning law—for a change of use, for example—there is a requirement to have workplace parking. If we approve amendment 7 unamended, I genuinely believe that there is a real risk of judicial review, especially from smaller companies that have suppliers.
John Mason
Will the member give way on that point?
Mike Rumbles
No. On my amendment 8A, it is all very well for John Finnie to say that business customers do not include supermarket customers, but we are making the law and amendment 8 includes business customers—the customers of a business. I am trying to remove the reference to “business customer”, so that customers of supermarkets are not charged. We only have John Finnie’s word for it, so we have to look at the actual wording of the law that we are making.
I will not say much more, except that I find it completely amazing that John Finnie does not wish to accept my amendment 9C. The whole purpose of the proposed provisions is contained in amendment 9C, which says,
“the local authority proposing to make the scheme”
must be
“satisfied that there is an adequate level of public transport services in its area”.
That is the whole point of John Finnie’s amendments, so if he will not accept my amendment in order to achieve that, it makes the whole thing a farce.
John Mason
Will the member give way on that point?
Mike Rumbles
No, because I have finished speaking.
I move amendment 7A.
Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)
Very briefly, my amendment 7D would simply mean that if a workplace parking levy is introduced, it must be reviewed annually. That is important to assess the impact that it is having on the local workforce and employers. I do not believe that it is sufficient to allow local authorities to decide if and when they will review what the WPL is achieving. That would allow far too much leeway, so an annual assessment is correct.
My amendment 10G simply outlines various bodies that must be consulted before a local authority prepares and publishes details of a workplace parking levy. Again, it is a relevant and modest amendment. I hope that both of my amendments will be supported.
The Convener
I call Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 7B and the other amendments in the group.
Pauline McNeill
Similarly to Mike Rumbles’s amendment, amendment 7B seeks to ensure that an assessment of parking in the surrounding area is taken into account. Nottingham’s experience was that there was considerable displacement of traffic as a result of the parking levy. If such an assessment is not undertaken, there could be a serious impact on local people.
John Mason
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Pauline McNeill
I will.
John Mason
I wonder why the member feels that that needs to be in the bill. When a city such as Glasgow introduces, say, parking meters, it will consider the knock-on effect on the surrounding area, and the same applies to parking around the stadia. Does Pauline McNeill think that we cannot trust Glasgow City Council to consider the knock-on effects?
Pauline McNeill
Here we go. Can we trust Glasgow City Council? Lots of communities do not want extra traffic orders. It is a choice for them. It is not just a simple question of a local authority such as Glasgow City Council saying that, in order to stop displaced traffic, it will impose some restrictions on local communities. I am sure that the member will appreciate that amendment 7B is a probing amendment. The issue arose in Nottingham, so I suggest that it is legitimate for the committee to probe it.
Amendment 7C seeks to ensure that an assessment of the likely impact of the parking levy on poverty in the surrounding area is made and taken into account. In-work poverty remains a serious problem in Scotland, with 182,000 children living in poverty despite one person in their household being in work. The committee heard in evidence that many people rely on their cars to get to work, and many poor people do so because public transport, even in Glasgow, is expensive. A quarter of the people who live on the periphery of the city have to catch at least two buses to get to work, so we can see why, if people have a car at their disposal, using it is an easy choice to make.
Tens of thousands of people cannot afford to pay more, given the cost of living, yet the levy may be passed on. I do not believe that it will result in people getting out of their cars, because public transport, even in Glasgow, is not good enough. The connectivity report that was produced recently acknowledges that public transport needs significant investment, even in Scotland’s largest city.
It is perfectly acceptable for legislators such as us to provide broad frameworks that include principles that we believe local authorities should adopt, such as poverty impact assessments being done. I came here to fight on certain issues, one of which is poverty. I do not see why the tackling of poverty cannot be included as a principle in any framework that is passed, with local authorities then deciding on further detail.
We also need to consider the impacts on shift workers and part-time workers. How would the scheme take them into account? I have consulted numerous workplaces, and people are concerned about that.
John Mason made a point about regional transport partnerships. I do not think that they are accountable enough to have such a power, and I do not think that that is where we should end up.
In Glasgow, it will be a decade before we see the requisite investment. In Nottingham, £9 million a year has been raised, which is not enough. Even in Scotland’s largest city, it will be a decade before public transport is good enough for people to choose not to drive.
On the question of a power to hold a referendum, John Finnie asked Colin Smyth why he has so little faith in local authorities. I would ask John Finnie why he has so little faith in the people to make decisions in their localities on whether they want a parking levy.
I support Jamie Greene’s amendments. People’s welfare and standards of living are matters for this Parliament, and it is our job to consider those things in deciding whether to pass legislation.
We have not heard much about how the levy would be enforced, but perhaps we will hear about that further down the line. However, I want to hear how the levy will impact on the lives of people who already face poverty.
09:15The Convener
I would normally call Dean Lockhart now to speak to amendment 8E, but he is involved in other business in the Parliament, so Jamie Greene will speak to that amendment.
Jamie Greene
I will speak only to Dean Lockhart’s amendments—I think that that is the protocol—and will speak to other amendments in the group, including my own, when it is my turn. Dean Lockhart sends his apologies. There was, perhaps, a lack of understanding on when the committee would address the issue. As we appreciate, MSPs have other committees and MSP duties to attend to. He has asked me to reflect upon his amendments.
Amendment 8E is similar, in some senses, to amendment 8A from Mike Rumbles, who has the right intention when he suggests leaving out business customers from the levy. It strikes me as strange to want customers of businesses to be included in the levy on the business that they are visiting. Neither the purpose nor the length of those visits is stipulated.
We would like to take our amendment further than amendment 8A to include suppliers of businesses. For example, many small businesses get parts delivered. I have a few in my constituency—I am sure Mr Lockhart does too—to which other small and medium-sized businesses deliver goods or provide contractual work for short periods to assist that business. It seems unfair for those assisting businesses to be penalised in the same way. That is the premise behind amendment 8E.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Surely you are not suggesting that people who turn up for half an hour—or even come to repair an air conditioning unit—will be expected to pay a parking levy, because that is not the intention.
Jamie Greene
I hope not. You are absolutely right. It would seem unfair for them to pay such a charge. However, with respect, when we read Mr Finnie’s amendments to the bill, a number of us felt that there was not enough security around the exemption of business customers from the charge. If the minister or, indeed, Mr Finnie, in summing up, can point us to the specific wording in the amendment that gives us comfort and security on that, we can take a view on whether we move our amendments. In the absence of that comfort, we read the amendments and took the view that our concern was not covered. I do not want a scenario in Mr Lyle’s constituency, in which customers who turn up at a small business are part of its levy scheme. We want to put their exclusion on the face of the bill. Why would it not be? I hope that other members will agree with me. [Interruption.]
Mr Stevenson says that this is nonsense, but it is not. He is welcome to intervene if he has comments to make.
The Convener
I ask the member to push on and to ignore any comments. I say to all committee members that although this is obviously an interesting subject that has caught the public eye, making comments about other’s views under one’s breath is not helpful. I ask people to refrain from doing so, and to look at the legislation. I ask Jamie Greene to continue on amendment 8E, which he agreed to speak to.
Jamie Greene
I have nothing further to say on amendment 8E.
Amendment 8F, in the name of Dean Lockhart, seeks to narrow down the definition of what constitutes a “relevant person” in the legislation, and stipulates that it applies only to the person who provides the parking place in question.
Amendment 8G would remove education and Government institutions from the definition of businesses, and, in relation to amendment 8E, deletes the section defining business customers and clients, or customers of the “relevant person”. I know that we will talk about that in greater detail in the exemption section, so I will leave comments around removals of places until that discussion.
Amendment 8H, in Mr Lockhart’s name, seeks to ensure that only employees who work full time on permanent contracts are subject to the conditions of the levy. That would ensure that part-time or short-term contractual staff—such as those doing day temping jobs, which is common practice in many businesses—are not subject to the levy, which would relate only to permanent full-time staff.
John Mason
How would a job share be affected?
Jamie Greene
A job share in what respect?
John Mason
If two people do 18 and a half hours each, instead of one person doing 37 hours.
Jamie Greene
If a person is earning a salary for 18 and a half hours a week, it would be unfair for them to be forced to pay the same levy as someone who is earning a salary for 37 hours a week. Therefore, the exemption should apply.
The Convener
I call John Mason to speak to amendment 9A and the other amendments in the group.
John Mason
First, let me say that I very much support the workplace parking levy and amendments 7 to 14 in the name of John Finnie. It is worth stressing that the amendments only empower local authorities—this is about decentralising and giving power to local authorities, which might or might not take the powers up. Some have already said that they will take them up and some have not. The committee was impressed by Nottingham City Council’s example of what it has done and the success of that. A number of other English authorities are looking at following that model.
We must discourage people from unnecessarily taking their cars to work, especially in city centres such as Glasgow and Edinburgh—including MSPs in this Parliament. Glasgow has low car ownership, so, on the whole, the levy does not affect poorer people; it affects richer people. It is a tax on the elite. It is, broadly, a progressive measure and we should support it.
I especially liked the park and ride system in Nottingham. We need to use that system more in and around Glasgow.
Pauline McNeill
Do you think that the levy is an issue for members of the elite, who have cars, and that poor people do not have cars? Just in case you are wrong about that, would you support exemptions for those who earn, for example, less than the living wage?
John Mason
It is a levy on the employer. The employer does not need to pass the charge on at all.
Pauline McNeill
Who are the elite that you are referring to?
John Mason
For example, in this Parliament, the cleaners and the technical staff do not have parking places. The MSPs have parking places.
Members: That is not correct.
Pauline McNeill
It is a point of information but you are contradicting yourself. You said that the levy will not necessarily get passed on to the workers. Who are the elite? If the levy is to be placed only on the employer, you suggest that it will never be passed on. On the other hand, you say that cleaners will not pay it. Which is it?
John Mason
At present, the people in the city centres who are getting parking places are directors and bosses. It is different out of town but, in city centres, on the whole, ordinary workers are not getting free parking places.
Jamie Greene
People are watching this meeting and hearing that only the elite—directors and rich businessmen—get free parking spaces at their place of work; they must be watching in horror at what members of this committee are saying. Mr Mason, it is not true that only the elite park at their place of work. Every day, normal workers park at their place of work. Can you not see that?
John Mason
Not in the city centre. Is the member seriously arguing that ordinary workers commonly get free parking places in the city centres?
Jamie Greene
Often, yes.
The Convener
As a member of this Parliament who often works later in the evening, I do not believe that it is just MSPs who get car parking spaces. Often, when I turn up on a Sunday evening, a Monday evening or an evening during the week, security staff and people who come in to get the Parliament ready for the next day use the parking spaces—perhaps not during the day, but at night—as much as any MSP. Will John Mason accept that point?
John Mason
I accept that they get parking spaces if the MSPs do not require them. The norm is that parking spaces are for MSPs, company directors and those kinds of people. If people are travelling within Glasgow and Edinburgh, there is an extremely good public transport system and people should not normally need to take their cars for a 9-to-5 job and leave them sitting all day.
Of course there are people from outside the city—including the convener—who come from a great distance and for whom public transport does not work. Of course some people need to use their cars. However, the overall point of the levy is to reduce the level of traffic in the city centres, which is not sustainable and cannot keep growing. We need to tackle that issue.
Amendment 9A flags up the question of how the cabinet secretary and John Finnie think that RTPs might be involved. They are major players in transport. I take John Finnie’s point that there could be confusion and duplication, so I will not push it—there would be a lot of consequential amendments if I did. However, amendment 9A partly answers the question of how we can be more joined up. There are some extremely good examples of park-and-ride facilities, such as at Croy, which is in North Lanarkshire, although it would be Glasgow and Edinburgh that would raise the levy. We need to see the councils working together.
I accept that the proposal is that councils can work together, but I would like to hear the thoughts of John Finnie and the cabinet secretary on how that could be strengthened and how RTPs can be brought into the equation.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 9B would require parking levy schemes to be signed off by ministers, as is the case with LEZs and other similar schemes. It would provide additional oversight. I note that amendment 9B is supported by some organisations that support a workplace parking levy, such as Friends of the Earth.
John Finnie says that amendment 9B would go against his view that all decisions should be made by councils. However, his amendments provide national exemptions, which suggests that his localism is selective.
Amendments 10A and 10B would require a ballot to be held to introduce a scheme. That would democratise the process and ensure that it has public support. A similar ballot was held on the possibility of a congestion charge in Edinburgh, so there is precedent. Much has been said about consultation, but if it is so important, why not have the ultimate consultation and let people decide in a ballot? I echo the phrase that John Finnie used earlier: why do those who oppose this have so little faith in the public?
Jamie Greene
This group of amendments is quite large, so I will keep my comments to the amendments in my name. However, I will be supporting amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles, Pauline McNeill and Colin Smyth.
Amendment 9D, in my name, seeks to impose conditions on the local authority before it sets up a scheme. Members will see that amendment 9D adds paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) to subsection (2) of the new section that is proposed by amendment 9. That is because I think that it is right that a local authority should be able to demonstrate the need for the scheme; that the displacement of vehicles as a result of the scheme will not increase carbon pollution in the areas to which they are displaced; that any levy will not have a detrimental impact on employment levels or on the economy; and that a workplace parking levy cannot be introduced in an area where there is already a low-emission zone.
When we took evidence on the point of the levy, we were told that it was to deter people from driving into cities, but there are other means to do that. We were told that other cities have successfully introduced congestion charges to encourage people not to drive into cities, but where that is not possible, they have to pay the associated fee. That is the case in London. There are also low-emission zones that will tackle the sorts of vehicles that we do not want in our cities. Broadly speaking, there is cross-party support for those measures.
Since the idea was introduced, the Scottish Conservatives have been clear that we are opposed in principle to the workplace parking levy. We see it as a regressive tax on motorists and workers. Far from what Mr Mason said, it is not just rich business directors and owners who park at their place of work. If we passed the bill with the amendments that Mr Finnie has lodged, the levy could impact any worker in Scotland—other than those who we exempt—if a scheme is established in their local authority area.
09:30Amendment 9D stipulates that local authorities would have to publish an impact assessment. I appreciate Mr Finnie’s intentions in amendment 10 with regard to preparing and publishing information about a scheme and its objectives and
“an assessment of the impacts of the proposal”.
That is welcome, but I have taken the idea further. I want the bill to ensure that local authorities publish reports detailing the impact that a levy would have on
“low income households ... small and medium-sized businesses in the vicinity”
and
“persons with a disability or impairment”.
Those are the three groups that we as a Parliament should talk about when we look at introducing taxes, charges or levies. It is important that that is in the bill so that local authorities cannot look past those groups. As currently worded, amendment 10 does not dictate which groups must be consulted or say that there must be an assessment of the impact of the levy on those groups. We should focus on those three groups of people.
Amendment 10F would add an assessment of the impact on local businesses and island communities, which is important. The committee has spent a lot of time looking at our island communities, and it is right and proper that we look at assessing any levies on them by their local authority.
In my region, if North Ayrshire Council decided to introduce a levy as a result of the legislation, I would want it to perform robust impact assessments of the effect that the levy would have on the islands of Arran and Cumbrae, where, for example, public transport is limited at certain times of the day and many people simply have to drive to their place of work. In the case of some of the distilleries or production facilities on Arran, driving is the only way to get to work.
I want to ensure that we do not pass legislation that negatively impacts our island communities, bearing in mind the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and the additional duties that it confers on local authorities. I hope that members will consider that and support amendment 10F.
Amendment 11A is a technical amendment on how a scheme may be revoked.
I lodged amendment 12B because, if the Parliament does its job and sees that a levy is having a severe negative impact on the economy of an area of Scotland, we should be able to ask the local authority to review and possibly revoke its scheme. That would be a helpful power, which currently does not exist, for this Parliament to have. Amendment 12A is a technical amendment to facilitate that.
Amendment 14A would remove a requirement for licences in a scheme to
“specify the maximum number of ... vehicles which may be parked”
in a workplace. I see no tangible benefit in having a maximum number, as amendment 14, in the name of John Finnie, currently provides, so I want to remove that cap.
On the issue of petitions, I appreciate that there might be disagreement about whether 20 per cent is a suitable trigger and I am happy for members to amend that at the next stage. However, if it is the view of local residents and businesses that a levy is having a negative impact on their communities, businesses and local authority area but, despite the strength of support for review or revocation of the scheme, the local authority does not listen, I want to give power to the people in that respect. If feeling is strong—I am happy for the threshold of 20 per cent to be raised if members feel that that is too low—and local people are telling the local authority to stop a scheme as it is causing small businesses harm, it is only right that it should be forced to review the scheme. That would be a useful and welcome power to give people.
I am happy to leave my comments there, as other members have spoken at length to their amendments.
The Convener
I know that two members wish to speak. Unless anyone else wishes to add to that number, I will call Richard Lyle to start with.
Richard Lyle
In the past few months, I have made comments about the workplace parking levy. Since then, I have listened to the evidence that has been given by various organisations—in particular, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I have also listened to the debate about the climate emergency and to the people who are demonstrating outside the Parliament today.
From 2007 until 2009, I was the Scottish National Party’s group leader on COSLA, and prior to that I was a councillor for more than three decades. I therefore believe in localism, councils being able to take decisions on behalf of their communities, and the democratic process. I am coming up for my 43rd year in politics, in which time I have also learned that people scaremonger. I used to do so—just as other parties in the Parliament are now doing in relation to this policy. Some of the amendments that have been lodged and some of the comments that have been made are totally incorrect. I have therefore changed my view, so today I will support Mr Finnie’s proposal.
I believe that councils should be able to raise levies if they feel that they should do so. Some will use that power and others will not. I know that, at the end of the day, people will come back at me because of the comments that I made previously. So be it. I have been a politician for long enough to expect that. At the end of the day, I have made up my mind and will support Mr Finnie’s amendments.
The Convener
If no other member wishes to add anything, I would like to say something before I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up.
It is difficult for a convener to allow members’ own views to be represented and to represent the views of the committee, and there comes a time when they must take off their convener’s hat and say what they personally believe. I am now doing so and am speaking as a member of the committee.
First, I have listened carefully to the evidence that was given during our evidence sessions, which I am thankful that the committee was able to take. During the sessions, it became clear to me that there were three suggested ways of tackling emissions in towns, villages and cities: congestion charging, low-emission zones and workplace parking levies. It was also made clear that we could choose only one of those options and not multiples of them, because they were seen as conflicting with each other.
I also listened carefully to the evidence that was given to the committee by Nottingham City Council. It appears to me that that council’s area is completely different from the majority of areas in Scotland as far as public transport is concerned, in that it has excellent public transport provision that enables people not to take their cars into the city centre. In Scotland, the position is different. We have large areas of rural hinterland where people who have to travel into cities have few options for taking public transport. From my experience in such areas that I have worked in, I know that, if you get on a bus to go somewhere, you often have to catch the very same bus on its return journey to get back to where you have come from, and that you have to use that service without interruption if you are to make the right connections.
Having looked around at views on the matter and at what we heard in evidence, I have little doubt in my mind that employers would pass on this form of taxation to their employees—they would certainly ask them to pay their share—so I believe that the levy would become a tax on going to work, which I do not believe to be progressive.
We have discussed how people use car parks at odd times of the day, when people who work normal hours are not using them, so that they can service buildings and ensure that they are ready for the next working day, and I made an intervention on that during Mr Mason’s speech. I do not think that it is right that people who work outside normal working hours should have to pay such a tax.
I have also listened to what Mr Lyle has said about being a politician. I have not been—and never will be—a politician for 43 years. I got into politics so that I could make a stand on difficult decisions.
I therefore wish to make it abundantly clear at the outset of this process that I do not support the proposed workplace parking levy or any part of it. I do not believe that it will achieve anything from a climate point of view. I will vote for amendments where I see that they will produce a benefit should the proposal be agreed to, but I will not vote for the proposal itself, because I do not think that it is in the interests of people who go to work in Scotland.
Having made that statement, I put my convener’s hat back on. I thank committee members for allowing me to speak and not interrupting me. I now call on the cabinet secretary to comment.
Michael Matheson
John Finnie set out the case for giving local authorities the power to introduce workplace parking levies. As we consider the amendments, members will see that the proposal is carefully crafted and is very much about empowering local authorities and giving them the tools to address issues such as the climate emergency. No single action can do that, but we need all available powers at our disposal to meet those pressing challenges.
In the recent stage 1 debate on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, all parties were clear on the need for action. Spokespersons for various Opposition parties stated that
“We are facing a national environment and climate emergency”;
that we need
“to take further action”;
and that we should
“not ... postpone taking hard decisions.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2019; c 29, 25, 33.]
However, a modest and completely discretionary power for local authorities to act has attracted furious criticism from those very same parties.
I turn to the other amendments in the group, which range from those that appear to be well meaning to those that I can only assume are designed to frustrate the proposal. I firmly agree with John Finnie’s approach to localism in decision making, and I am disappointed at what appears to be a lack of confidence in local authorities from some members with regard to the use of those discretionary powers.
It is worth restating some of the key principles of John Finnie’s amendments. The proposal concerns a power for, not a duty on, local authorities. It is underpinned by duties to consult and to carry out impact assessments for persons who are affected as well as the environment. It is strategic, as it is linked to the achievement of activities that have been set out in a local transport strategy. Funds that are raised must be spent on the scheme and on transport-related activities.
On John Mason’s point about the role of RTPs, no local transport strategy can be shaped in isolation, and the drafting and development by a local authority of any strategy to support such a proposal will require due consultation with RTPs. That provision will be set out in guidance to accompany the legislation.
For those reasons, I support John Finnie’s amendments, and I cannot support the other amendments in the group.
The Convener
I call John Finnie to wind up on amendment 7.
John Finnie
There has been much discussion, so I will just leave the comments as they are.
The Convener
I ask Mike Rumbles to wind up on amendment 7A and to indicate whether he intends to press or withdraw it.
Mike Rumbles
I think that we are making bad law. The budget deal between the Scottish National Party and the Greens has shackled the committee in its work. It is quite obvious that the SNP and Green members are not accepting any of the constructive amendments that are designed to improve the bill, and we therefore cannot do our job.
Jamie Greene
Does Mr Rumbles share my frustration and sadness at the way in which we are legislating? We did nothing on the proposal at stage 1; it should have been introduced by the Government at stage 1 so that we as a committee would have had a proper chance to scrutinise it and to consult the public and businesses—the people who are going to be affected by it. I am deeply saddened by the process that we have gone through to squeeze it in at stage 2.
Mike Rumbles
I agree with that—I am deeply saddened. When I joined the Parliament 20 years ago, I thought that the great thing about it was the committee work. However, the SNP members are being whipped to support the Green amendment, and they are not accepting any other amendments—
John Mason
No.
Richard Lyle
No.
Mike Rumbles
Oh, it is quite obvious that they are. Come on—stop playing games. This is too important a matter for members to play games.
We have lodged constructive amendments to try to improve amendment 7. I plead with the transport secretary in that regard, because we have tried to be constructive throughout the process, so that we can make good law, and this is not a constructive approach.
We might not like amendment 7, but we can certainly improve it. I want us to have the opportunity to lodge similar amendments at stage 3, when I hope that we will have some time to debate them. I will not press amendment 7A, because I want the Presiding Officer to select a similar amendment for debate at stage 3, so that we can—I hope—make constructive changes to the approach.
Amendment 7A, by agreement, withdrawn.
09:45The Convener
I call Peter Chapman to move or not move amendment 7D.
Peter Chapman
I will move amendment 7D, but before I do that I would like to—
The Convener
Mr Chapman, you may move or not move the amendment, but you do not have the opportunity to debate it. We have had the debate.
Amendment 7D moved—[Peter Chapman].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7D be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7D disagreed to.
Amendment 7B moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7B disagreed to.
Amendment 7C moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7C be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 7C disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendments 8E, 8A, 8F, 8B, 8G, 8C, 8H and 8D not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 9 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendments 9A and 9C not moved.
Amendment 9B moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 9B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9B disagreed to.
Amendment 9D not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment 10 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 10D not moved.
Amendment 10A moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 10A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10A disagreed to.
Amendments 10B, 10E, 10C, 10F and 10G not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 11A not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendments 12A and 12B not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 13A not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 14A not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on workplace parking exemptions. Amendment 15, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 15A, 15B, 16, 16N, 16A, 16B, 16C, 16E, 16X, 16Y, 16AB, 16AC, 16D, 16L, 16F, 16G, 16V, 16H, 16I, 16J, 16K, 16O, 16P, 16Q, 16R, 16S, 16T, 16U, 16W, 16Z, 16AA, 16AD, 16AE, 16AF, 16AG, 16AI, 16AJ, 16AK, 16M, 16AH and 27. I point out that if amendment 15A is agreed to, amendment 15B will be pre-empted. Furthermore, if amendment 16M is agreed to, amendment 16AH will be pre-empted.
John Finnie
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.
10:00That 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.
The Convener
Eight members will be given the opportunity to speak to their amendments, after which other committee members will have the opportunity to speak. I will then call the cabinet secretary. After that, I will—unconventionally—suspend the meeting for a five-minute break, because we will then go into a lengthy period of voting. I will push on now.
Colin Smyth
My amendments would add a number of exemptions to the proposed levy. John Finnie contradicted himself again. He said that local government should decide on the exemptions, but he has lodged amendments to create a number of national exemptions. Local democracy seems to exist when the Greens and the SNP decide that it should.
Amendment 15A, in my name, would exempt car parks with 15 spaces or fewer. Amendment 15B, in Jamie Greene’s name, would similarly exempt car parks with a maximum of 20 spaces. Either amendment would be a welcome addition and I am happy to support them as either would set a clear figure that allowed businesses that cover several areas of Scotland to know exactly what rules they had to play by.
Amendment 16C, in my name, would exempt police premises. We have heard—rightly—that NHS premises should be exempt, because the NHS is a national service. The Greens seem to have failed to notice that the police service is now a national service. Police officers and staff have a unique safety need to use private vehicles to get to work and back, so police premises should be exempt from any scheme.
Amendment 16D, in my name, would exempt educational premises, and amendment 16AI would exempt premises that social workers use. The committee received evidence that, for a range of reasons, teachers and social workers require the use of a car to get to and from their places of work.
Amendment 16AJ would exempt premises that shift workers and people who work irregular hours use, as they are less likely to contribute to congestion and more likely to struggle to find public transport, as they work outwith the normal working day.
For the SNP to somehow describe social workers, the police, teachers and shift workers as the elite is an utter disgrace, to be frank.
A significant number of exemptions have been proposed, some of which overlap with mine. All the proposed exemptions would make a valid contribution and I am happy to support them all. However, the volume of legitimate exemptions suggests how flawed the process is.
Those who support the workplace parking levy should have made it the subject of a bill on its own; instead, the proposal is being slipped through at the last minute as an amendment that is part of a murky budget deal. That means that the Parliament cannot scrutinise the proposal properly, which is why I utterly oppose the levy and believe that exemptions should be put in place when we have heard clear evidence in support of them.
I move amendment 15A.
Jamie Greene
I will not add much to what Colin Smyth said. The Labour Party and the Conservatives do not often agree on tax exemptions or on other tax issues—
Richard Lyle
Better together.
Jamie Greene
That is uncalled for, Mr Lyle. You are welcome to intervene if you have a comment to make.
Richard Lyle
I apologise.
Jamie Greene
Thank you for your apology.
The important point, which Mr Rumbles summed up nicely, is that we are creating the law, so the committee has a duty. I am deeply saddened by today’s events, because we are not making good law—the volume of proposed exemptions suggests that.
Let us look at the list of proposed exemptions. I appreciate Mr Finnie’s comment that they are well intended; I am pleased that that has been recognised, because that is the case. There may be other amendments that one could argue were seeking to disrupt the mechanisms of the levy and people are welcome to their views on that, but these are proposed national exemptions.
Where I disagree fundamentally with the approach taken in Mr Finnie’s amendments on the workplace parking levy is that it will be up to local authorities to decide on local exemptions. That means that each city or local authority that introduces a levy as a result of the legislation can decide who pays and who does not. Theoretically, that could lead to teachers in Glasgow being liable for the charge but not those in Edinburgh, or nurses in Aberdeen being liable but not those in Dundee. Where is the fairness in that?
This is not about local democracy; it is about creating bad law. The list of exemptions from the Scottish Conservatives and others—Mr Rumbles and Mr Smyth propose a number of exemptions, too—should be in the bill. They cover the hard-working people and public service workers in Scotland that Parliament and this committee should seek to protect: firefighters, policemen, train drivers, care workers, prison officers and people who do charity work in our high streets. Why on earth are we subjecting them to this tax? We should be ashamed of ourselves. I support all the amendments on exemptions in the group.
Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con)
Having spoken to a number of people who work in our health and social care sector, I have lodged a number of amendments, and I welcome the fact that John Finnie’s amendment 16 exempts hospices. I was looking to lodge such an amendment, because that exemption was not originally included.
The intention behind my amendments is to exempt from the scheme people who work in health and social care. Amendment 16O would exempt employees who work for independent healthcare services, while amendment 16Q covers people working in Scotland’s air ambulance service. I have also sought to exempt adult social care providers through amendments 16R and 16S, while amendments 16T and 16U would exempt
“places at residential care establishments”
and health-based charities across Scotland. Amendment 16P covers employees of veterinary practices.
Finally, amendment 16N would delete the words “subject to subsection (2)(b)” from subsection (1)(b) of the section that amendment 16 seeks to introduce. Subsection (2)(b) stipulates that someone must be a healthcare provider to qualify for exemption at a hospital. That is a key point. Like our Parliament, hospitals require technicians, cleaners and security personnel, to name just a few. They all provide a vital and key role in hospitals and NHS settings, and it is only right that they, too, should be exempt.
The Convener
I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 16A, because I believe that Graham Simpson is in another committee meeting.
Jamie Greene
I am happy to do that. Graham Simpson gave his apologies and asked me to move amendments 16A and 16B. The amendments seek to exempt “industrial lands and heritages” and construction sites from the scheme, based on a number of pieces of consultation that he and our party have held at such sites.
We approached businesses in a number of local authority areas to talk about the prospect of the levy and the effect that it might have on them and their workforce. I appreciate the comment that was made about the levy being on the premises and not the people, but it is inevitable that some businesses will pass the levy on to their employees, as happened in the only other local authority in the country that has implemented such a scheme. They will do that not out of spite for their employees but out of necessity, because they cannot afford the levy that will be imposed on them.
I have spoken to a number of businesses on industrial sites and I will give some examples of their views. It is important, in the midst of the politics and emotion around the proposal, that we listen to local businesses such as Brakes Scotland in Newhouse. It said:
“As a major employer ... based in an out of town location ... with a 24 hour operation, Brakes believe the proposal for a ... Levy would have a negative impact on our employees and people who work under similar circumstances. The lack of public transport ... outside of major conurbations and the ability to provide suitable, safe and regular alternatives to fit with shift patterns ... leaves people no option but to drive to work, and imposing a ... tax on them would be, in our view, unfair and punitive.”
I hope that Mr Lyle will reflect on that. Perhaps he will comment on it—I am happy to take an intervention
Richard Lyle
I think that you are talking about an area in my constituency. It is very nice to know that you have contacted a business in my constituency. As you know, North Lanarkshire Council has never—during the years when I was a councillor there and since then—implemented a car parking charge.
10:15Jamie Greene
I am pleased about that, but you have just voted to give the council the power to do so.
Richard Lyle
But it has never implemented—
Jamie Greene
Mr Lyle, why are you not listening to businesses in your area?
The Convener
In fairness, members, I am happy to allow interventions, but let us not have our proceedings degenerate into a conversation across the table. I do not think that that is how the committee works—it will not work like that.
I invite Jamie Greene to push on. If Mr Lyle wishes to intervene on a specific point in order to question Jamie on something, he may by all means seek to do so.
Jamie Greene
I thank Mr Lyle for expressing his interest in the matter. We have already voted on a number of the amendments, but I plead with him to have a think and to listen to the businesses concerned. What about Sutherland Brothers at the industrial estate at Wick airport? It stated:
“Operating within an industrial estate and with poor public transport, our staff have no alternative but to use their car to commute to work.”
That includes those
“travelling in the early hours of the morning or late evenings to get to and from work.”
Many of the amendments that we and other parties are proposing would exempt certain shift workers and certain locations, and rightly so. I appeal to the hearts of some committee members, who should listen to what the businesses in their own patches are saying and to what we are saying. If members do not agree with me, that is perfectly fine and decent, but if they do not agree—
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
In a moment.
If they do not agree with us politically, that is also perfectly fine and decent in a committee setting. However, please listen to the businesses in your own constituencies and regions. Businesses are not happy, and we are trying to exempt them as a result of the comments that they have made to us.
John Mason
Does the member accept that such decisions are all better made by the local authorities, because they know their areas better? Cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh are more keen on the levy, because the big problem is in the city centres. Many other local authorities, if not all of them, are less keen on a levy, because they do not have city centres.
Jamie Greene
Mr Mason implies that the workplace parking levy will be applied only in cities. Nowhere in Mr Finnie’s amendments is it stated that the levy can be applied only in cities. If Mr Mason wanted to lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 3, I would probably support him, because that would secure rural and suburban areas where there is poor public transport.
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
In a second. Please let me respond to your first intervention.
Mr Mason is making an assumption that, among local authorities, only city councils would wish to introduce a workplace parking levy. We are giving every local authority in Scotland the power to do that, with the result that businesses that are not located in cities might have to pay the levy. We are trying to protect those businesses and those workers.
Colin Smyth
Does the member accept that one of the fundamental flaws is that, although some people argue that the power will be exercised only by cities such as Glasgow or Edinburgh, the reality is that thousands of people from outwith the city boundaries travel into those cities every day for employment, often from areas such as the Borders, which has limited or poor public transport? Those people will be forced to pay the levy, but not a single penny will be spent in their area to support improvements to public transport there.
Secondly, such people will have no say over the matter, because it will be a neighbouring local authority in a city that will decide, despite the fact that they will have to pay.
Jamie Greene
Mr Smyth is absolutely right. We need to reflect on that. If Glasgow City Council introduced a levy—I am sure that Mr Mason would support the council in that—what about workers from Ayrshire or Inverclyde who have to drive to premises—
Richard Lyle
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
Please let me finish.
What about those who have to drive to premises on industrial estates? Cities have industrial estates that are not served by public transport. Cities have people who work evening shifts and early mornings and who have no means of getting to work other than their cars. It is not just people who live in the city whom you are discouraging from taking their cars; you are discouraging people who have no choice, who live in peripheral local authority areas. The actions of a local authority that introduces a levy and the consequences of those actions will be felt by neighbouring local authorities and by people who live outwith the local authority areas concerned.
Richard Lyle
As I said when I posed a question to a councillor from Glasgow, a substantial number of people who travel into Glasgow or Edinburgh to go to work pay car parking charges at the moment. Do you agree?
Jamie Greene
Some employers charge their employees for parking. That is at the discretion of those employers, and they know their workforce. I do not want a blanket approach under which all employers have to charge for parking at their workplace. Therefore, if—
Richard Lyle
I am sorry, but I am talking about people who use National Car Parks facilities or who park at the St Enoch centre or Buchanan Galleries or people who park on the street and pay at a parking meter. I am talking about people who are not charged by their employer; they are being charged by the council.
Jamie Greene
Are you suggesting that they should have to pay a workplace parking levy on top of the private car parking charges?
Richard Lyle
No. I am saying that there are people who already pay to park in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Colin Smyth suggested that thousands of people will pay the charge, but there are people who pay car parking charges at the moment, so that reduces the number.
Jamie Greene
As I said, we are creating national legislation that sets the parameters of the levy. A local authority will be able to mandate all businesses in its area to introduce a levy—there will be no pick and choose here.
To return to local exemptions, if one local authority decides that something is okay but another does not, that will create huge unfairness for our workforce. Mr Simpson’s amendments in the group would exclude certain sites and locations, which is the right thing to do. They are the sites that are the furthest away from our cities, that are the least served by public transport and that tend to have 24-hour operations or shift workers.
John Mason
Does the member at least accept that we probably all agree that no local authority will suggest that there should be a workplace parking levy in a village or out-of-town workplace, and nor will we? Does he accept that we are aiming at the same thing and that the question is whether we take a more centralist approach and decide everything at the centre or allow local authorities to make the decisions?
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the tone in which Mr Mason asked that question and his candour. I appreciate where he is coming from, but there are far too many assumptions in those questions. He says that no rural authority will introduce a levy, but how does he know that? Local authorities are by default political bodies, and they may choose to introduce a levy. That choice should not be available to them, because of the effect that it would have on the workforce.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member take an intervention?
Jamie Greene
This is turning into a lengthy debate. I am trying to be polite, convener, but it is entirely up to you to decide, given the time.
The Convener
It is up to you how many interventions you take, but it might be appropriate if you take one more intervention and then try to wrap up to allow other members to come in.
Jamie Greene
I will not take any more interventions. If other members want to speak to the amendments in the group, they are welcome to do so.
I have made my point. I ask members to reflect on the sensible list of proposed exemptions and give the issue genuine thought. Please do not vote against exempting those workers. It is the right thing to do, so please join us in voting to exempt them.
Mike Rumbles
John Finnie said several times that the levy is on the employer. He is absolutely right about that, and I agree with him. [Interruption.] I see that Mr Finnie is shaking his head—he said that earlier, so maybe that was just an aside. It is a levy on the employer, but there is nothing in the bill to prevent the employer from passing the levy on to employees, so I think that we are dancing on the head of a pin.
Mr Finnie also talked about the principle of localism. I support the principle of localism, but I also support the Parliament doing things right. As members of the committee, our job is to make good law. I am very exercised about that, because that is an important job for us.
We all come here from political backgrounds. I happen to be a Liberal Democrat, but my job here is to ensure that we pass law that is fit for purpose. It is quite obvious to me that, with all the amendments, we are trying to improve the bill. It is a great disappointment that, whatever amendment is proposed, there is an instruction that it will not be allowed.
When the Parliament was set up, it was set up without a revising chamber. I see Stewart Stevenson shaking his head. I was here 20 years ago, Mr Stevenson, at the foundation of this Parliament—
The Convener
Mr Rumbles, I ask you not to have conversations across the table.
Mike Rumbles
I am responding to what Mr Stevenson said.
The Convener
Mr Stevenson made a comment while he was sitting down, without intervening. I suggest that you push on with the point that you were making.
Mike Rumbles
Thank you, convener.
I remember that, when we first took our seats here 20 years ago, there was a big debate about whether we should have had a revising chamber. It was decided that we should not have one because the work of the committees was important and the job of committee members would be to scrutinise legislation, and particularly legislation that was proposed by the Government.
We have a bizarre situation in which, because of a political agreement, the amendment that John Finnie has lodged cannot be touched. This strikes at the very heart of what the Parliament was designed to do. What we are doing is wrong, and I am saying so.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member take an intervention?
Mike Rumbles
I will not. I have not intervened on other people; I have listened to what everybody has said, and I am deeply disappointed by this whole shameful process in our parliamentary system. I appeal to the cabinet secretary to think hard about this and to come back at stage 3 and be prepared to accept reasonable, constructive amendments that have been lodged as part of us doing our jobs.
I turn to my amendments in the group. If we are going to have an exemption for the national health service, it is logical that we look around and ask what other national exemptions we should have. Trying to be constructive, I lodged some amendments to cover, for example, the Police Service of Scotland, which is a national service. I thought that John Finnie would appreciate that, given his work experience.
It is a false idea to say that we can have a national exemption for the national health service but not for anybody else. That is just not logical. Where is the logic in that? It is bad law and we should not agree to it. I am really frustrated and disappointed by the whole process.
The Convener
I call Liam Kerr to speak to amendment 16X and other amendments in the group.
Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)
I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to speak. I lodged several amendments that seek to exempt key groups from the workplace parking levy, for reasons that were well articulated by Colin Smyth. I also strongly associate myself with Jamie Greene’s comments.
In brief, amendments 16X and 16Y would see staff who work at the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland exempted from the scheme. Amendment 16Z covers those who work in the criminal justice social work services that are carried out by local authorities, and amendment 16AA covers those who work on the prison estate. My view is that those are critical services that are required in order to keep the public safe, maintain law and order and promote rehabilitation, and they should be exempted from the scheme.
The Convener
I call Maurice Corry to speak to amendment 16AB and other amendments in the group.
Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendments. Her Majesty’s Coastguard is a critical national safety service and it is on notice to move immediately. Coastguard officers have to be in the field and coastguard ground officers who are in control have to be available. They all need to be available 24 hours a day, and there is a necessity for them to communicate and work with other emergency and blue-light services. Many of those people are in rural areas, and when the balloon goes up at 2 o’clock in the morning, the lifeboat and coastguard people have to get to their stations on time and be available to go forward. Accordingly, I propose that they be exempted from any parking charges.
10:30The Convener
At this point, I should have called Alexander Stewart to speak to amendment 16V, but I believe that Jamie Greene will speak to it instead.
Maurice Corry
I am sorry, convener, but I do not think that I have spoken to my amendment on the lifeboat service.
The Convener
I will come back to you one more time, Mr Corry. [Interruption.] In fact, I will come back to you now.
Maurice Corry
Thank you very much, convener.
Like the coastguard service, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a national service that is critical to the safety of our coasts. After all, we are a maritime nation.
The RNLI is a charity, and there is no way that a charity of such a size will be able to absorb these charges without passing them on to the crew. I am absolutely adamant that our lifeboat crews and the lifeboat base, administration, support and operational staff must be protected. The crews are in communication with other emergency services, and because they need to be on call, with immediate notice to move, it is impossible for them to rely on public transport. They must be able to take their cars to work.
The Convener
We now come to amendment 16V. Normally, Alexander Stewart would have been speaking to this amendment, but I believe that Jamie Greene will do so on his behalf.
Jamie Greene
I will be very brief, convener, because we have already covered a lot of ground.
Amendment 16W, also in the name of Alexander Stewart, seeks to exempt care workers from the charge. I cannot for the life of me understand why we would want care workers, as defined in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, to pay this levy. After all, they work unsocial hours, often for low pay and in difficult circumstances. Therefore, I absolutely support this amendment, which seeks to exempt those workers from the levy; I think that it is the right thing to do, and I hope that other members agree.
Mr Stewart’s other amendment, amendment 16V, relates to those working in Scotland’s airports. As we all know, Scotland relies very heavily on aviation connectivity to service our islands, and I see no reason why an air traffic controller or security worker at an airport in, say, Campbeltown, Barra, Kirkwall or Stornoway should have to pay a levy for carrying out what I consider to be the lifeline duty of servicing our remote and island communities. Again, I appeal to members who have these types of workplaces in their regions or constituencies to think very carefully about voting against exempting them.
The Convener
So far, the only member who has indicated their wish to speak is Stewart Stevenson.
Stewart Stevenson
Clearly there are genuine, deeply held but differing viewpoints on this matter, and that is entirely right and proper. That said, I think that members of this committee should be very careful about attributing to others the reasons that they might have for coming to their decision—in my personal case, on the basis of no knowledge whatever of how I have reached the decisions that I am exercising democratically as we vote on these amendments today.
I did not start off in uncritical support of this proposal. Like others, I have engaged in quite robust debates with a range of people and come to the views that I have come to, and I ask members to respect my individual process and, indeed, the individual process of anyone around this table who might hold views either contrary to my own or the same as mine. I think that it is entirely improper for the process by which we as individuals have come to our viewpoints to be traduced in the way that I have heard.
Turning to more substantial matters, I think it important that we ask ourselves whether local authorities will behave responsibly or irresponsibly in discharging the duties that we are looking to give them under this provision. It is not as if we are asking that question in a vacuum. Such powers have been available to local authorities south of the border for decades now, so we have a model that we can look at to find out whether or not local authorities behave irresponsibly on the matter.
Now, if members of this committee and this Parliament wish to say that Scottish authorities are uniquely irresponsible, compared with their English counterparts, I invite them to do so on the record. I do not happen to believe that to be the case—not because the local authorities are Scottish but because they are the custodians of the interests of local people and they behave in a proper way. It is beyond contemplation that people in Campbeltown are likely to find themselves subject to a levy while people in Cornwall, in England, are not, because their local authority has concluded that it will not introduce a levy. Incidentally, there are no air traffic controllers at Campbeltown and Barra; there are air flight information service officers—
The Convener
You are splitting hairs—
Stewart Stevenson
It is a very substantial hair, for all sorts of interesting reasons.
The bottom line is that we should conduct this debate with proper respect for the individuals who are participating in it. That is my main point. In coming to my views, no one dictates to me; I come to my views honestly. I might be wrong, at the end of the day, as we all can be, but I come to my views honestly and independently, and I ask members to respect that, just as I respect the views of everyone around this table.
John Mason
Hear, hear.
Pauline McNeill
I will briefly address some points in relation to the exchange between Jamie Greene and Richard Lyle. If the proposed approach becomes law, the people of Glasgow are likely to face a workplace parking levy, because the authorities have declared that they will.
Like Mike Rumbles and Stewart Stevenson, I am in favour of localism, but I think that it is the job of this Parliament to set the national policy. We are responsible for the national policy on anti-poverty measures, so if we are doing our job we should be giving serious consideration to exemptions.
I have done some consultation. Tennent Caledonian Breweries is in Duke Street, which is regarded as pretty close to the city centre. There are shift workers and part-time workers there, and they are concerned. There are people who use the bus if they are on the back shift, because they can do that, but who cannot do so if they are on other shifts, because it is not possible to get public transport at certain times of the night.
McVitie’s in Glasgow also has part-time workers and shift workers. Companies are already concerned about the implications of Brexit, and they are concerned about the workplace parking levy. I ask committee members to consider the implications all round—that is, not just the implications for the workforce but the implications for an industry that is very concerned about Brexit.
Edrington, which is a well known and fabulous whisky company in Drumchapel, recruits from all over Glasgow and beyond. The company is concerned for its part-time workers.
Shop stewards in those places have told me that they are concerned about the impact on women workers. In some cases, the workforce is predominantly female, and many workers are single parents and have childcare responsibilities; they need their cars. In most cases, they are low-paid workers. The shop stewards are concerned that even if the costs of the workplace parking levy are not passed on to the workers, in subsequent pay rounds the workers will pay the price of the company having to fork out £400, or whatever the charge is.
Richard Lyle
I agree with Stewart Stevenson. I made comments about the car parking levy well before—months before—it came before this committee. Just because I have listened to the arguments and the evidence and changed my view, I am being attacked. If I had not listened and was voting with the five members who feel that they are not being listened to, I might have been attacked by other members. Sorry, but sometimes politicians have to come off the fence. I have come off the fence on this issue.
Some of the amendments are pure scaremongering. Stewart Stevenson’s comments are correct. I worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland in Glasgow and I paid to park on the street or, alternatively, in a car park. I did not have an individual car parking space, and many companies will not have such spaces for their workers, who will be paying to park on the street or in car parks.
Care workers are out and about visiting the people they look after. I do not see where they park. When I was a councillor, they did not park in the council car park, so they would not get charged. It is pure scaremongering. With the greatest respect to Mike Rumbles and others, I have changed my mind and other members should change theirs.
The Convener
We have had two suggestions from members that others are making up their minds because they are being told what to do, and they have been criticised for making those comments. It is wrong, in my opinion, for committee members to then criticise other people for the position that they are taking. We are all entitled to our opinions, and members should respect that.
Before I bring in the cabinet secretary, I again take off my convener’s hat to make an interesting observation. When councils are under increased financial pressure, they look at all ways and opportunities to raise revenue across their portfolio. I saw an example of that when fees were raised on car parks in the Highland area. My fear is that, although councils may currently say that they do not want to raise workplace parking levies, they may be forced into doing so as their financial position becomes tougher, and people may be swept up in that.
In addition, there has been no investigation of the financial case for the proposal. I know of some firms that pay for their employees to park in public car parking spaces because they do not have the ability to provide them with parking spaces. People have contacted me about the issue. Should the levy come in, it might fall to those employees to pay for their parking charges because the company believes that everyone else is paying for parking.
I call on the cabinet secretary to speak. As soon as he has finished speaking, we are going to pause. Cabinet secretary—until the pause, the time is yours.
Michael Matheson
The amendments in John Finnie’s name strike a balance between the national and local dimensions. We have a national framework that allows national exemptions to be applied but, as John Finnie said in speaking to his amendments, national exemptions should be the exception, and I agree.
I believe that our role is to set the framework and to let those who take forward a scheme implement it on the ground. That is why I cannot support amendments 15A and 15B, which seek to exempt from charges under licensing schemes any premises with, respectively, 15 or fewer or fewer than 20 workplace parking spaces. Those numbers are arbitrary, with no reference to the circumstances that a local authority might be trying to address.
Amendment 15 has the balance right and would allow local authority schemes to exempt premises with less than a maximum number of parking spaces, as the scheme in Nottingham does. I am therefore happy to support amendment 15. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I would encourage the committee to support it. I invite Colin Smyth and Jamie Greene not to move amendments 15A and 15B respectively. If they are moved, I ask the committee to reject them.
Amendment 16 has attracted a lot of attention, not least given the number of amendments to it that have been lodged. I will return to those amendments and the range of matters that they intend to address. I fully support the exemptions that are set out in amendment 16. The exemption of hospitals and NHS premises was a condition of our support for the workplace parking licensing scheme amendments. John Finnie made a clear case for exemptions for NHS premises, and I am happy to support that approach.
I also see the merit in including hospices and blue badges in the limited range of national exemptions on similar grounds. I agree with John Finnie that national exemptions should be the exception. I also agree with the principles of localism and believe that significant local decisions are best made locally. That will mean that they are informed by local circumstances, needs and opinions. Amendment 16 has got the balance right, and I am happy to support the amendment. If it is pressed to a vote, I invite the committee to support it.
10:45Jamie Greene
Why did the Government come to the view that only the NHS should get an exemption and not other public service workers in similar circumstances? Why does the cabinet secretary not think that, if you give the power to create local exemptions to local authorities only, it will create a disparity between local authorities that will mean that some workers have to pay in one area while others in other areas will not have to pay? How is it fair when a teaching assistant in Dundee does not pay while one in Glasgow does?
Michael Matheson
The purpose is to give local authorities the discretion to tailor schemes that reflect their local circumstances, and the amendments that we support provide them with the flexibility to determine what they see as being local need.
It should be borne in mind that local authorities have to undertake a significant level of engagement prior to establishing such a scheme to make sure that they consult a range of different stakeholders that will allow them to consider issues that arise during the process. A robust duty is placed on local authorities to consider the issues and, ultimately, it is for local elected members to come to a decision.
Our decision to support the NHS is driven by the fact that it is a national service and there are specific issues around the number of parking spaces that are often required at hospitals for those who work there and those who access the hospital itself. On that basis, we agreed that there should be a principle of NHS facilities being a national exemption.
The remaining 37 amendments in the group all seek to exempt a sectoral group, specified premises, or a company. When reading the amendments, I was struck to note how little they reflect the evidence that the committee heard in advance of stage 2. Not unreasonably, we looked to Nottingham’s experience of running a workplace parking levy scheme. Chris Carter from Nottingham City Council told the committee:
“The beauty of the workplace parking levy is that it is flexible and allows different exemptions to meet needs. However, another strength of the levy is its simplicity. If too many exemptions are introduced, it becomes too complicated and a lot of the benefits are lost.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 22 May 2019; c 13.]
We have 37 amendments, each of which seeks to add further nationally mandated exemptions. If you do not mind me saying so, convener, one could be left thinking that some members do not want the scheme to work because of the range of exemptions that they are seeking to put in place. I understand that there are concerns about how a workplace parking licensing scheme will be applied—[Interruption.]
The Convener
Mr Greene, if you want to ask to make an intervention, please do, but it is not fair to talk over someone when they are talking.
Michael Matheson
The place to address those concerns is at the local level, except in specific cases. I am concerned that the amendments that seek to bring in additional national exemptions will have the effect of undermining local decision making and will make schemes unworkable and ineffective. As a result, I cannot support those amendments, and I invite members not to move them. If they are moved, I invite the committee to reject them.
The Convener
Thank you, cabinet secretary. As the cabinet secretary has just said, we are about to go into a series of votes. Before we do that, I will suspend the meeting for 10 minutes.
10:49 Meeting suspended.11:00 On resuming—
The Convener
I reconvene the meeting. The cabinet secretary had just summed up, so I now ask John Finnie to wind up on amendment 15.
John Finnie
There has been a lot of discussion, so I will leave it there.
The Convener
I ask Colin Smyth to press or seek to withdraw amendment 15A.
Colin Smyth
I will press amendment 15A.
The Convener
I remind members that, if amendment 15A is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 15B, due to pre-emption.
The question is, that amendment 15A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15A disagreed to.
Amendment 15B moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 15B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 15B disagreed to.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 16N moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16N be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 16N disagreed to.
Amendment 16A moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16A disagreed to.
Amendment 16B not moved.
Amendment 16C moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16C be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16C disagreed to.
The Convener
I call amendment 16E, which is in the name of Mike Rumbles.
Mike Rumbles
I want to bring this issue back at stage 3, when it might get a fairer hearing, so I will not move amendment 16E.
Amendment 16E not moved.
Amendment 16X moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16X be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16X disagreed to.
Amendment 16Y moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16Y be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16Y disagreed to.
Amendment 16AB moved—[Maurice Corry].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AB be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AB disagreed to.
Amendment 16AC moved—[Maurice Corry].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AC be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AC disagreed to.
Amendment 16D moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16D be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16D disagreed to.
The Convener
I call amendment 16L in the name of Mike Rumbles, which was debated with amendment 16.
Mike Rumbles
As I am always an optimist and in hope of a fairer hearing at stage 3, I will not move amendment 16L.
The Convener
It would be helpful if members could simply move or not move their amendments. I have 14 pages to get through before the next bit, and it would make it easier if we could keep the votes flowing.
Amendments 16L, 16F and 16G not moved.
Amendment 16V moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16V be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16V disagreed to.
Amendments 16H, 16I, 16J and 16K not moved.
Amendment 16O moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16O be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16O disagreed to.
Amendment 16P moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16P be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16P disagreed to.
Amendment 16Q moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16Q be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16Q disagreed to.
Amendment 16R moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16R be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16R disagreed to.
Amendment 16S moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16S be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16S disagreed to.
Amendment 16T moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16T be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16T disagreed to.
Amendment 16U moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16U be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16U disagreed to.
Amendment 16W moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16W be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16W disagreed to.
Amendment 16Z moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16Z be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16Z disagreed to.
Amendment 16AA moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AA be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AA disagreed to.
Amendment 16AD not moved.
Amendment 16AE moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AE be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AE disagreed to.
Amendment 16AF moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AF be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AF disagreed to.
Amendment 16AG not moved.
11:15Amendment 16AI moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AI be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AI disagreed to.
Amendment 16AJ moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AJ be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AJ disagreed to.
Amendments 16AK and 16M not moved.
The Convener
I call amendment 16AH, in the name of Miles Briggs.
Miles Briggs
Convener, I intend to bring this amendment back at stage 3, as it would exempt the lowest-paid workers in our NHS, but I want to move it today, too.
Amendment 16AH moved—[Miles Briggs].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 16AH be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16AH disagreed to.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
The Convener
The next group of amendments is on workplace parking: financial provisions. Amendment 17, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 17C, 17A, 17D to 17R, 17T to 17V, 17B, 17S, 18, 18A and 19.
John Finnie
Amendment 17 outlines how charges arising from the workplace parking licence will operate. The first—and key—point to make is that it is a charge on the occupier of the premises, not on individuals parking at their workplace. How—and, indeed, whether—the levy is recovered from those parking at their workplace is a matter between employers and employees.
I want to specifically address the power in proposed subsection (1)(b) in amendment 17, as it is key to the other amendments in the group. It is important to make it clear that the power for Scottish ministers to specify other persons who may be liable is to allow for circumstances in which someone other than the occupier of the premises should be liable to pay charges for the provision of workplace parking. It would, for example, allow parking spaces at an occupier’s premises to be leased to another organisation for use by its employees. Although the person providing these places to employees would not be the occupier of the premises at which the spaces are allocated, they would have to hold a licence for those spaces. Regulations made under proposed subsection (1)(b) could ensure that that person also paid charges.
The amendment absolutely does not mean that the charge could be levied on individual employees, given that it is restricted to the recovery of charges imposed under licensing schemes. Under amendment 7, licensing schemes may impose charges only on people providing workplace parking, not on those who use it. That is a crucial distinction. Schemes cannot regulate whether or how a provider who is required to hold a licence may choose to recover charges in respect of a licence from anybody else.
Therefore, the majority of the amendments in this group appear to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of proposed subsection (1)(b).
The practical effect of the amendments would not be to provide exemption to employees or to prevent charges being recovered in any particular circumstances by employers or anybody else who was liable to pay them. However, the amendments could prevent charges imposed by schemes being recovered from people who provide workplace parking, which is surely not the intention. There could be the absurd position under amendment 17F, for example, that a provider of workplace parking could not be made liable for licence charges because they had children under 12. That cannot be right.
Amendment 17 also allows for local authorities setting up a scheme to have some flexibility in how it is applied, permitting different charges or no charge to be applied in respect of different days, times, persons, premises and vehicles. That would be a very useful tool for local authorities, as they could tailor their scheme to reflect local circumstances and use the scheme to promote other policies. The power to specify different classes of motor vehicles could, for example, support the promotion of ultra-low-emission vehicles, which addresses the issue that is covered in amendment 17R, again allowing the local authority to take the lead on what is best for its local area.
It is not clear whether amendments 17T and 17U are intended to ensure that no charges are imposed at weekends or between the hours of midnight and 6 am. In any event, the power would already permit local authorities to impose lower or no charges on whichever days and at whatever times they wish, again empowering them with local discretion.
Amendment 17S would require employers seeking to recover charges from employees to put in place a plan to means test those charges. My amendments will deliver a scheme that is a charge on people who provide workplace parking, not people who use it. The reason for that is that occupiers of premises provide workplace parking and it is right that they focus on the impact and result of that parking.
My amendments are silent on how employers recover the charge from employees, if they do so at all. It is a matter for employers whether they recover the charge and evidence from Nottingham is that not all employers do so. Employers may also decide how to recover charges from employees and how much to recover. The committee heard evidence from Nottingham City Council that employers who are subject to its scheme can and do vary the charge that is recovered, depending on factors such as the salary of the employee and the location in the scheme area of their place of employment.
Jamie Greene
Do you expect that the Government would set a national charge via regulation, as was discussed with regard to pavement parking and low-emission zones, and that if companies passed on the charge, they could subsidise it by making up the difference between what it was liable to pay and what it charged the employee? Is that how the scheme would work?
John Finnie
I am not sure that I absolutely understand the point, but no, that would not be the intention.
Seeking to regulate those nuanced matters at a national level would be extremely challenging and might give rise to a greater risk of unfairness than leaving the issue to the discretion and judgment of employers would.
Amendment 17S would require that employers had a plan for means testing employees. What should that cover? Should it cover income, outgoings, dependents and debts? As well as being extremely bureaucratic, it would be extraordinarily intrusive. What if an employee did not want to share details of their private life with their employer? Why should they be compelled to do so?
Amendment 18 underpins a key element of my approach to workplace parking levies. Funds raised by the workplace parking licensing scheme could be used for two purposes: the administrative costs of the scheme, and activities to help deliver the local transport strategy. It is not a simple revenue-raising power, as some critics suggested.
When a local authority is considering a scheme, it will require a local transport strategy, which is not something that a local authority is required to have. However, where a local authority has a strategy, that will be where activities that the workplace parking levy can fund are set out. Where better for that than in a strategy that is aimed at addressing local transport needs? That should go some way to providing reassurance on the purpose and outcomes of a WPL. It builds on the transparent and locally focused approach that I have adopted in my amendments.
Amendment 18 will allow for joint working by local authorities when that would benefit the area that is committing funds. That reflects the fact that transport issues are often framed by travel-to-work areas, rather than by local authority boundaries.
Amendment 18A would require a local authority that operated a scheme to make a financial transfer to another local authority where a workplace parking licence charge was levied, that charge was passed on to an employee and that employee lived in another local authority area. The principle that underpins the amendment appears to be that it is unfair that people who live outwith a local authority area should pay towards transport improvements in that area, but is that really unfair? It could equally be argued that it is unfair that people from outwith an area who use transport, including local roads, in an area do not contribute to that.
There are other issues with amendment 18A, aside from the bureaucracy that it would involve. Funds that are raised through charges will be hypothecated into activities that are set out in the local transport strategy of an authority that introduces the levy. The receiving local authority might not have a local transport strategy; in any event, it would not be required to utilise the funds that it received to improve transport services. It could apply those funds in any way that it saw fit.
Fundamentally, the workplace parking levy is all about the fact that we are facing a climate emergency. We need as many tools available as possible to address that. It is disingenuous to claim that people who commute into a neighbouring local authority area do not contribute to problems for that authority and do not benefit from transport expenditure by that authority.
Amendment 19 seeks to give the Scottish ministers largely technical powers in relation to accounts for workplace parking licensing schemes. Its provisions are similar to existing provisions in part 1 of the bill on LEZs and in part 4 on parking prohibitions. The amendment will allow for transparency in the keeping of accounts by local authorities, which I would expect to be uncontroversial.
I move amendment 17.
Pauline McNeill
Amendment 17C has been drafted to stop companies passing the charge on to workers. I have already spoken about aspects of that intention. One of the issues is to do with the funds that the levy will raise. In Nottingham, which is not dissimilar in size to Glasgow, the levy raises £9 million a year. At that rate, if the levy were introduced in Glasgow, it would take a decade before the funds would build up to a significant sum. Following the Glasgow connectivity commission’s report, more than £1 billion has been asked for for Glasgow. The workplace parking levy will not raise enough funds to change the face of public transport, but it will cause a great deal of misery for workers.
I apologise to John Finnie if I am confused about this, but it is my understanding that the money that will be raised will not be ring fenced. Glasgow City Council, in particular, is under a great deal of financial pressure. It would be understandable if it were to spend the money on things other than public transport. I would have more respect for the policy if the money that was raised from it were ring fenced for public transport. Without the funds that are brought in being ring fenced for that purpose, the arguments for the workplace parking levy do not make a great deal of sense.
In its helpful evidence to the committee, Sustrans agreed that there should be discounts for low-paid workers and seemed to acknowledge that poverty proofing should form part of such a policy.
Amendments 17A and 17B seek to provide an exemption from the levy for people who earn less than the living wage, which is currently £9 an hour. The intention is to protect low-paid workers. Nearly half a million people in Scotland—the figure is 470,000, to be exact—do not earn the real living wage. In the worst-case scenario, low-paid employees might be forced to look elsewhere for work—[Interruption.] That is a legitimate argument, Mr Lyle.
Richard Lyle
Will the member take an intervention?
Pauline McNeill
In a minute.
Amendment 17D seeks to provide an exemption for single-parent families. At stage 3 of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill, the Parliament agreed to insert a provision that asked the Government to address measures in relation to child poverty. Single parents are a specified group in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017. According to the 2001 Scottish census, there are 170,000 single parents in Scotland, who have more than 281,000 dependent children. Glasgow has the highest rate of lone-parent families, who face many barriers to finding and sustaining employment.
Richard Lyle
I am interested to know where Pauline McNeill gets her information from when it comes to how many people this would affect.
Pauline McNeill
When you say “this”, what do you mean?
Richard Lyle
I mean any charge that is imposed. How many people in Glasgow would it affect who take the bus into Glasgow?
Pauline McNeill
Are you asking how many people take the bus?
Richard Lyle
No—how many people would end up paying a parking levy who do not pay parking charges?
Pauline McNeill
Thousands of people could be—
The Convener
I will remind members about the etiquette of this process. It is not a member-to-member conversation. If you would like to make an intervention, Mr Lyle, please make it through the chair and I am sure that Pauline McNeill will then answer it.
11:30Pauline McNeill
In answer to Mr Lyle, tens of thousands of workers could be affected. It would then be a matter for the local authority. However, the local authority in Glasgow has already decided that it will use the levy and thousands of workers there could be affected by it.
Transport Scotland’s own figures show that car usage among low-income households is relatively high so the suggestion that all low-paid workers get the bus is a misunderstanding of the profile of the city.
I lodged amendment 17E because there is already an employment gap between disabled people and the rest of the working-age population. I think that I am right in saying that disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed. I know that there has been discussion about users of the blue badge scheme possibly being exempt, but we need to discuss who would be exempt. There is certainly an issue to do with disabled workers who currently use a car. We need to make sure that further burdens are not added to their daily lives.
Amendment 17F would provide an exemption for parents of children under 12—those of primary school age or under. Many parents—many women in particular—need to use their cars to do the school run before work and I do not believe that this proposal has been equality proofed before stage 2. Many primary school children are taken to school by car or van—more than in secondary school. In Scotland, 29 per cent of primary pupils go to school by car or van compared to only 18 per cent of secondary pupils. Many parents use that form of transport. Often, primary pupils do not use public transport because they are too young to travel alone, so it is a significant issue for parents.
I move amendment 17C.
The Convener
I would have called Miles Briggs to speak on his amendment 17G at this point, but he has left. Jamie Greene will speak on his behalf.
Jamie Greene
According to protocol, I will speak only on Miles Briggs’s amendment and will keep my other comments until after other members have had the opportunity to speak about the other amendments.
The premise of Miles Briggs’s amendment 17G is to exempt from being liable for charges people who volunteer at establishments that provide adult healthcare, at establishments that provide adult social care and at hospices, where a hospice is defined as somewhere that is
“used for the purpose of caring for the dying or incurably ill”.
I appreciate that we have had a long and robust political debate, but I would like to think that anyone who gives up their time to volunteer in such places should, at the very least, get some exemption from the charges. These people are not paid, for goodness’ sake. I declare an interest in that members of my family provide voluntary services at such places and do great work, as I am sure all volunteers do. Please can we at least find some agreement that it is our moral duty to give volunteers an exemption? That is the premise of Miles Briggs’s amendment.
Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Jamie Greene
Yes, I will, but I ask that other members let me finish after that.
Gail Ross
Amendment 16 proposed that hospices should be exempt, under subsection (1)(c) of the section that will be inserted by amendment 16. We have agreed to amendment 16, so we have already voted for parking places at hospices to be exempt from charges.
Jamie Greene
That is very helpful, thank you. I support that. However, Miles Briggs wishes to add to that exemption people who volunteer in the other healthcare environments that I mentioned. Anybody who has ever been to hospital and used a—
The Convener
Excuse me, Mr Greene—I say to Mr Finnie that, if he wants to disagree, he needs to ask to intervene rather than just make comments.
Jamie Greene
It is welcome that the Government agrees that people who work at hospices should be exempt. I presume that that will include those who volunteer there. However, the addition of these other healthcare premises could exempt people who provide services at the shops and cafes that many hospitals in Scotland have. Those people are volunteers. I can check the names of some of the organisations, but we are all aware of them—we all come across them when we visit hospitals.
Michael Matheson
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
Please let me finish my point. Those people, who might even work full time but are still unpaid, might be required to drive to those locations, especially in hard-to-reach areas. That is the premise of Mr Briggs’s amendment 17G.
I am happy to give way to the cabinet secretary, if he has any further comments to make.
Michael Matheson
I do not know whether the member is unclear about how the levy will be applied, but I would point out that it is based on the premises. If volunteers at hospices are exempt from the levy, that is not because they themselves are exempt, but because the premises are exempt. If the local authority decides that a particular facility is to be exempt, it will be exempt. It is a levy on premises, not individuals.
Jamie Greene
But these places are not exempt—you have voted not to make them exempt. It is a ridiculous argument. You and the members of your party had the opportunity to exempt these types of places—
Michael Matheson
It is a levy on premises, not individuals—
Jamie Greene
If you want to intervene, please do so. Do not shout at me across the room.
Michael Matheson
You are getting it fundamentally wrong.
Jamie Greene
Please let me make the point—
The Convener
Hold on. I have said this before, and I am not going to keep repeating myself: the committee is not having a conversation; we are trying to get through legislation. If you want to have a conversation across the room, please do it through the chair or ask the member who is speaking whether they wish to take an intervention. I do not think that it is helpful for people to shout at each other across the room; indeed, if it was allowed to continue, it could lead to anarchy, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary would not want that.
Jamie Greene
Let me continue on what I think is quite a serious matter.
The cabinet secretary is right: if a place is exempt, a person—whether they be paid or otherwise—will, by default, be exempt, too. However, the committee has chosen not to exempt these premises, and amendment 17G seeks, as a back-up, to exempt those who volunteer at them. I implore members to think carefully about these people, whom we meet and interact with as MSPs when we go to these establishments. If those volunteers are not exempt, because the local authority has chosen not to exempt them, we should at the very least give them this opportunity to be exempt.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
I am just finishing my comments. The member will have an opportunity to speak to the amendments, if he so wishes.
We can at least exempt the types of people who volunteer at these organisations and set that as a national standard. It is the right thing to do, and I implore members to support the amendment.
The Convener
Thank you. I call Michelle Ballantyne to speak to amendment 17H and any other amendments in the group.
Michelle Ballantyne (South Scotland) (Con)
I will try to keep my comments relatively brief, convener. I thank the committee for allowing me to speak this morning. Before I go on, I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
The amendments in my name seek to secure exemptions from the scheme for individuals who receive benefit payments. Amendment 17H seeks to secure an exemption for those receiving short-term assistance, while amendments 17I to 17K seek to exempt individuals who are in receipt of universal credit, jobseekers allowance or employment or support allowance. Furthermore, amendments 17L to 17N seek to exempt individuals who are in receipt of disability living allowance, personal independence payments or carers allowance.
I have lodged the amendments because I believe that those who receive benefits are already at the lower end of the earnings scale and are actively trying to get back into the workplace and gradually increase their working hours. The amendments seek to do two things. First, a national exemption would ensure consistency for people who are in receipt of benefits and would allow them to be confident that, when they go into the workplace, they will not end up having to pay for parking there.
Secondly, I have listened to the arguments very carefully this morning and, if it is being suggested that businesses should pick up the tab for workplace parking, the amendments might actively encourage them to employ people who might otherwise find it difficult to get into the employment market—particularly those with disabilities, who struggle to find employment. These exemptions might give businesses an extra incentive to employ them.
I believe that there is a cross-boundary risk, in particular, attached to the proposed levy. Most of the people in the category that we are talking about cannot afford to live in the cities—indeed, they are often pushed to their edges or outside them—but those who seek employment within the city boundary could well be caught by the levy.
My final point is that businesses already pay rates on their parking spaces, because those are part of the rateable value of an organisation’s premises, so we would be double-charging businesses by introducing the levy. That might be fine for a highly profitable service-led industry, but in manufacturing, for example, where margins are much tighter, it will pose considerable problems. It is important that John Finnie considers national exemptions in some areas, this being one of them. Although I am pleased that he has welcomed exemptions in relation to the NHS, I think that many people on benefits will question why highly paid NHS staff are entitled to a national exemption while they, who are on the minimum wage or struggling to get back into work and provide for their families, do not receive the same exemption. I hope that Mr Finnie will consider that.
John Mason
Does the member understand that we are talking about places, not people, being taxed? The provisions do not differentiate between higher and lower-paid employees. The situation that she refers to would come into effect only if an employer passed on the charge in some way—for example, by cutting a person’s pay.
Michelle Ballantyne
I referred to that in my comments. If an employer is not prohibited from passing on the levy—
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Michelle Ballantyne
Hang on—let me finish. My understanding of the provisions is that they would not prohibit an employer from passing on the levy, so that may well happen. If an employer did not pass on the levy as a direct charge to the employee, in a business with low margins that would inevitably affect the rates that it could pay. By default, an unintended consequence of the provisions is that they would affect the earnings of the lowest paid.
I understand exactly what John Finnie is trying to do here. I understand that the levy would be imposed as a place charge and not an individual charge. However, I say to all of you that, when you make law, it always has unintended consequences, and I do not believe that you have considered those unintended consequences in their entirety or that you have shown adequate understanding of how business operates and the impact that the levy would have on businesses, which are already paying for their parking.
John Mason
If, theoretically, the levy was reflected in a lower pay increase next year, there is no way that this Parliament could intervene or be involved in that unless an employee’s pay went below the minimum wage.
Michelle Ballantyne
That is the whole point, is it not? Governments’ actions have an effect in the real world. The bill and the committee’s decisions will have consequences in the real world. It is incumbent on all of us, when we consider the amendments that come before us, to consider the potential consequences of the decisions that we make.
I have listened really carefully to a lot of the debate this morning. Some of it has made good sense and some of it has shown a huge degree of naivety about the real world. The people who suffer the most when we make such laws are always the people on the lowest incomes. How can you sit here and tell me that it is imperative that there is a national exemption for NHS employees, based on their contribution to society and the need for what they do, but that there is no need to protect those who are on the lowest incomes or encourage businesses to provide opportunities for them? I think that you are really missing the point.
Richard Lyle
I get your concern, but were you as concerned when your party brought in the bedroom tax and people had to pay that?
The Convener
Whoa! Mr Lyle—
Richard Lyle
It is a fair comment.
Jamie Greene
That is not what we are debating.
The Convener
Hold on, everyone. We are looking at the workplace parking levy. I do not think that comments such as Mr Lyle’s are helpful.
Richard Lyle
I know that you do not.
The Convener
Mr Lyle, with the greatest respect, I think that, as convener of the committee, I show remarkable impartiality and do not pass comment. I ask you to respect me and to treat me in the same way as you would the Presiding Officer, which means that you do not answer back when I am speaking. To do so is rude and shows disrespect to the parliamentary system.
11:45Maurice Corry
Before I speak to amendment 17O, I declare that I am an armed forces veteran.
Amendment 17O covers all uniformed and serving personnel, regular reservists, cadets and civilian instructors who serve in our military units and our military bases and training areas in Scotland, which are Crown property. They are there operationally, and many personnel have to be available 24 hours a day. In some cases, they are told to move at short notice. Therefore, they require their vehicles to attend to their duties at all hours and where public transport is not available or is limited, particularly in rural and out-of-town areas.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 17P would exempt low earners, as defined by the Scottish ministers in regulations. As it stands, the regressive levy would hit the worst-off hardest. Amendment 17P seeks to address that if employers pass the levy on to employees—let us be clear: the levy can and will be passed on by many employers. Indeed, when giving evidence to the committee, the SNP spokesperson for transport on Glasgow City Council argued that the levy will work only if it is passed on to workers. Councillor Richardson said:
“Passing the levy on is one of the tools to enable behaviour change. What is being passed on in the levy is the disincentive to drive”.—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 22 May 2019; c 50.]
Let us be clear: if the levy is brought in by the SNP in Glasgow, it will be passed on to drivers.
Amendment 17Q seeks to exempt those without access to public transport, because it is unfair to penalise those with no other option than to use their car to get to work.
Amendment 17R would exempt those who drive ultra-low-emission vehicles. If the purpose of the scheme is to reduce emissions, I cannot see why a person driving an ultra-low-emission vehicle should have to pay the charge, particularly as they have already gone to the additional expense of purchasing such a vehicle in order to do the right thing and reduce emissions. Failure to support amendment 17R would show that the levy has nothing to do with the environment and is simply a budget decision designed by the Greens and the SNP to provide a fig leaf—
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Colin Smyth
If you let me finish my sentence, I might.
The provision was designed to be a fig leaf to cover up their budget decision to cut the funding of local councils.
John Mason
Do you accept that congestion is a problem in the city and that, even if we filled the city centres with electric cars, we would still have a problem?
Colin Smyth
If Mr Mason is saying that he is opposed to electric vehicles being one of the solutions to emissions, we have a challenge on our hands when it comes to the environment.
Amendment 17S calls on employers to introduce a scheme—such as the one that was described to the committee by Nottingham City Council—whereby the amount that is paid by their employees varies according to income. That would ensure greater fairness should the levy be introduced. Taxes should be progressive, but the levy is regressive.
Amendment 18A seeks to ensure that, when the cost of the levy is met by an employee, the money that is raised goes to the local authority in which they are resident. It is unfair that people living outside cities without good transport links should have to pay the levy because of a lack of public transport in their area and not have the proceeds of the levy spent on improving the poor public transport that led to their using a car in the first place. I have raised that issue in the committee on numerous occasions. The cabinet secretary said that the committee is not listening to the evidence, but the reality is that it is the cabinet secretary who is failing to listen to the evidence.
There needs to be a solution to that particular issue. The south east of Scotland transport partnership—SEStran—provided a solution when it gave evidence to the committee and strongly argued that the levy should be applied strategically so that it deals with that anomaly. I again give the example of someone from the Borders who works in Edinburgh having no choice but to pay the levy for using their car because there is no public transport, yet no money that is raised in Edinburgh will go to improving public transport in the Borders.
The way in which to deal with the issue is to allow the levy to be applied more strategically. I appreciate that that would mean looking at transport more strategically, which the Government does not do often enough, but I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to the evidence that has been given to the committee and take a more strategic approach to the proposal.
Tom Mason (North East Scotland) (Con)
First, I draw the committee’s attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, particularly to the fact that I am a councillor on Aberdeen City Council and I am an exception to the people who are around the table as, arguably, I will be one of the ones who has to deal with the legislation when it is passed. No doubt, local government will be pressurised into using the legislation to supplement the funds that it receives from central Government because it has been short-changed this year by at least £26 million.
I associate myself with Colin Smyth’s words about the lack of strategic thought in the bill as a whole. If there is a problem with congestion, we should resolve the congestion. Parked cars do not cause any congestion at all, so why put the levy on parking when it should be on road use if it is to solve the congestion problem?
Taxing electric cars also does not strike me as making any sense whatsoever.
Amendment 17T simply seeks to define a normal working week. In other words, it is not 24 hours a day; it is five days a week and only during the day.
Amendment 17V seeks to exempt government institutions. What is the point of charging a levy in any way on such institutions? It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is not particularly sensible; any government workplace should be exempt.
However, if you do that, you will have problems with pork barrel politics in local government, which determines exactly what is going on, and could cause disharmony in local government.
The Convener
Jamie Greene is next, and then two more members wish to speak. I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 17U and other amendments not already covered.
Jamie Greene
Does that mean that I can also speak to the other amendments and that no other members are queueing to move their amendments? Is that correct?
The Convener
No. You speak to amendment 17U. I have got you down to speak after Mike Rumbles, who will come in first.
Jamie Greene
That is what I wanted to clarify, convener.
I am happy to speak to amendment 17U, in the name of Dean Lockhart, which seeks to exclude people who work unsociable hours when public transport is simply not available, not just scarce, between the hours of midnight and 6 am, which should encompass many shift workers who simply have to drive to get to their place of work.
The amendment is sensible. In many parts of Scotland, it is not an option for someone to get a bus to their place of work at 11.30 at night. If we are to introduce the provisions as proposed, we should acknowledge that many people have to take their cars to work because they work unsociable hours. We should place importance on shift workers. Those people should be exempt. Amendment 17U seeks to do that, and I hope that it will get the committee’s support.
Mike Rumbles
I have tried to lodge amendments to the bill that I think are constructive and will help to improve it.
John Finnie’s amendments 17, 18 and 19 will improve the bill. I opposed his earlier amendments, but if we have to have them, I will vote for amendments 17, 18 and 19 because they will make sure that the income from the charges goes directly to the area that should benefit from it. They also make it clear that it is the occupier of the premises who will be charged. I will support those amendments.
Some strange comments have been made about this issue. The whole point of John Finnie’s series of amendments—the whole point of the workplace parking levy—is to make people use their cars less. If we are going to make people use their cars less, the levy will have to be passed on to the drivers, otherwise there is no point. What would be the point if the charges are not passed on?
I accept that. If we go down this route, the charge has to be passed on, and that is the problem. I would be in favour of this approach if we did not put the cart before the horse. If we had areas in which there was a decent public transport system, that could encourage people to move from their cars to public transport. If we had such a system in place, the proposal would be more logical, but it is not logical to put the cart before the horse.
I will vote against all the other amendments in the group, because they would not improve the bill. They are focused on the occupier of the premises. I know that they are well intentioned, but there is an issue. I highlight Pauline McNeill’s amendments as an example. I do not see how we can, in legislation, prevent a charge from being passed on in one form or another. After all, is that not the purpose of the exercise? I do not understand the amendments. Amendment 17A states:
“Regulations under subsection (1)(b) must provide that a person who earns less than the living wage is exempt from being specified as being liable for charges.”
Again, I point out that it is the premises, not the individual, that is liable for the charge. By the way, very high earners might not necessarily be earning—they might take their money in dividends.
Pauline McNeill
I lodged those amendments because, during the evidence sessions, some members said that the charges do not need to be passed on. It has been a little bit confusing. I agree with Mike Rumbles that the policy intention is to pass the charge on. I lodged my amendments to test the argument and ask what it is that we are trying to do. At the very least, we need to be clear about what the policy intention is. Members are saying that the charge does not need to be passed on—I think that John Mason said that, but I could be wrong, so I apologise if he did not. If that is the case, what would be the problem in removing the possibility that companies could pass the charge on to workers? Why do we not just put that in the legislation?
Mike Rumbles
I understand where you are coming from. From what you are saying, it sounds to me that you will not press your amendments, and in that case there will not be a vote on them. I will give you an example. Amendment 17D states:
“regulations ... may not apply to a person who is the parent of a child living in a single-parent household”.
A single person could be a very wealthy business owner, so why put that in an amendment? I do not quite understand the point that is being made there.
I reiterate that the amendments are well intentioned, but they miss the point of the bill. As I see it, the whole point of amendment 17—I will be happy to take an intervention from John Finnie if I have got this wrong—is to change behaviour and move people away from driving their cars and on to public transport. My problem with that approach has always been that, if we do not have the public transport in place, how can we change behaviour effectively?
John Mason
Mike Rumbles raises a number of points. Would he at least accept that, in the city centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh, we have pretty good public transport, and people can generally get around without using their cars? Secondly, would he accept that an employer has various options? One is to pass the charge on; another is to reduce the number of parking spaces so that there are fewer cars and less congestion; and a third option is for the company, if it is profitable, to absorb the costs itself.
Mike Rumbles
I thank the member for that intervention. My whole point earlier, and the point of the amendments that I lodged—which I thought were constructive—was the very point that John Mason makes. If the City of Edinburgh Council was convinced that it had a decent public transport service, it could implement the charge. My amendment was designed to ensure that a charge would not be implemented in an area that did not have a decent public transport service, because the whole point of the proposal is to change behaviour and move people from cars on to trains or buses, or other public transport. We are making bad legislation because we are putting the cart before the horse.
I come back to the specific amendments in front of us. I will support John Finnie’s amendments, because they will improve what the committee has voted for—the workplace parking levy—even though I did not vote for it. The whole focus of my attention in this process, and the job of the committee, is to improve the bill.
12:00Colin Smyth
Mr Rumbles said that he is opposed to the other amendments in this group, but he has not addressed the issue. He talked about us putting the cart before the horse. In part of my region, people are more likely to get a horse than they are to get a bus. Those constituents are the ones who will be penalised, because they will pay the levy by virtue of travelling into the city to work. They do not benefit from public transport. As the bill is currently written, none of the money that is raised will be spent on improving public transport in their area. That is why I am seeking to improve what is proposed by sharing the benefits of the levy more widely. Surely we should be looking to do that.
Mike Rumbles
I do not think that it is possible to focus on the person rather than the employer. I do not see how we can get round the fact that it is the employer that will pay the levy. To seek to do so is to miss the whole purpose of amendment 17. Therefore, I will not support what Colin Smyth wants to do.
I am trying to do what I think is the right thing, which is to improve the bill. Amendments 17, 18 and 19 will do that; I say that even though I do not like what John Finnie has done in the first place. At least we can mitigate what he has done.
Michelle Ballantyne
Convener, I have to leave because I have to attend another meeting. Thank you for letting me speak. I have instructed Jamie Greene on the moving of my amendments.
The Convener
Thank you.
Jamie Greene wants to speak next.
Jamie Greene
This has been an interesting debate about the mechanics of how the scheme might work. I appreciate that Mr Rumbles is seeking to improve what has been agreed to. I totally respect his modus operandi, but I do not think that amendments 17, 18 and 19 would improve the bill, so I will not support any of them.
Let us look at some of the amendments in the group, because we will have to vote on them, if they are moved. It is important that we take a step back and look at what we will be voting on. Some of the amendments are interesting and helpful. Amendment 17R, for example, proposes an exemption from the levy for people who drive electric vehicles. I thought that we were trying to encourage people to use electric cars, so why would we charge people who move from carbon-based vehicles to electric cars for driving those electric cars to work? People will make that shift because of other provisions in the bill, such as those on the setting up of low-emission zones. Why would we give them the benefit of not being charged to enter a city through an LEZ, only to hit them with a charge for parking their electric car at their place of work? How will that take us from the current level of ownership of electric cars—0.7 per cent—to anywhere near the level that the Government and other members desire us to reach? We should definitely support an exemption for people who drive electric vehicles.
There are other sensible amendments. Michelle Ballantyne addressed the issue whether the levy is a tax on places or people. That is a key point, which John Mason and others have spoken about. The levy is a tax on places, but that is only because that is how it has been constructed. We are creating the law. The workplace parking levy was not in the bill in the first place. We are dealing with amendments to a Government transport bill. We can amend those amendments, and that is what we are trying to do. If we want to make the levy about people, we can do so; it does not have to be about places. The amendments from Miles Briggs, Pauline McNeill, Colin Smyth and Michelle Ballantyne seek to shift the focus from the place to the person because, ultimately, it is people who will pay the levy. Whether those people are small business owners or the workers in those businesses, they are still people. The whole point of many of the amendments in this group is that certain groups of people should be exempt.
What about people who are in receipt of benefits and are able to work? I do not have the numbers to hand, but I am sure that there are many thousands of people in Scotland who are in receipt of some form of benefit and are able to, and choose to, work. Why should they have to pay the levy?
For goodness’ sake, what about people who are driving adapted cars because of disabilities? Are we really suggesting that we will charge them as well? What on earth is this committee doing? Let us have a really long, hard look at ourselves. If we are not going to exempt places, let us think about exempting people. Let us think about the people we want to help get into the workplace, not put off. Charging them to park at work is not the way to get them back into the workplace.
The Convener
No other committee member wishes to speak so I ask the cabinet secretary to make his remarks.
Michael Matheson
In many ways, amendment 17 is at the heart of workplace parking licensing schemes. The amendment is explicit that the charge applies to
“the occupier of the premises”
not the employee. As John Finnie has made clear, the powers in subsection (1)(b) of the section that will be inserted by amendment 17 to specify other persons who can have charges imposed on them is absolutely not about requiring employees or anybody else who uses workplace parking to pay the charges. It cannot do that. I therefore agree that the amendments—
Mike Rumbles
I agree entirely with what you have said, but surely the intention is to change behaviour—to move people out of their cars, on to public transport—and therefore the intention of amendment 17 is to make sure that that charge is passed on to the employee.
Michael Matheson
A variety of options are available to premises owners. For example, in Nottingham, the university repurposed a large part of its car park for other use. Employers could do something similar; they could decide to reduce the number of parking spaces that they make available in order to encourage people to make use of public transport. They could turn their car park into a green space if they wanted to. There are other options available to employers.
The other amendments in this group that seek to amend or make provision about the exercise of the powers in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new section set out in amendment 17 in order to prevent or restrict the imposition of charges on people who use workplace parking are misconceived and I therefore cannot support them.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new section that is set out in amendment 17 is very important. It gives local authorities the flexibility to vary how the scheme applies. This is the very opposite of the restrictive approach that has been claimed for the scheme and indeed the approach that would be imposed on local authorities by some of the amendments that have been proposed. That flexibility is to be welcomed, as it gives local authorities the scope to address, at a local level, many of the concerns that have been raised as they will be able to vary charges for different days, times, premises or classes of vehicle. It also allows local authorities to act proactively—to promote low-carbon vehicles, for example.
Amendment 17 also requires local authorities to consider how they will direct the funds raised by the schemes when they are setting charges. That is addressed further in amendment 18, which makes crystal clear that a workplace parking licensing scheme is not simply a revenue-raising exercise. I am clear that it is our responsibility to set the framework for workplace parking levies and then to allow local authorities flexibility to apply them in ways that are sensitive to local circumstances; the provisions in amendment 17 do that.
Amendment 18 provides clear direction on how the funds raised should be used. It does not say what funds should be used for, but it requires the local authority proposing a scheme to have a local transport strategy, and the funds raised should go towards the facilitation of that strategy.
A workplace parking licensing scheme should be proposed only where it will help to meet wider objectives. The role of the local transport strategy is to make sure that clear strategic objectives are being set. The objectives and the local transport strategy will be agreed locally. That will in turn inform the scheme, which will—with the exception of the national exemptions—be agreed locally, so I am comfortable that amendment 18 sits well with the localism approach.
Amendment 18 also facilitates joint working, which I know was a concern for some stakeholders, and it allows for the administration costs of the scheme to be met from the funds raised by the scheme, so it should be self-sustaining.
I cannot support amendment 18A, which seeks to require a local authority operating a scheme to transfer any charges recovered from employees resident in another local authority area to that other local authority—not least because it would dilute the funding available to the local authority operating a scheme to make the necessary improvements to transport infrastructure and services in order to meet the scheme’s objectives, but also because the authority receiving those funds would not be required to apply them to improve transport in its area.
However, I am happy to support amendment 19, as it inserts a necessary regulation-making power, which is consistent with the rest of the bill. As John Finnie said, it allows for transparency in the keeping of accounts in relation to workplace parking licensing.
I ask the committee to support John Finnie’s amendments in this group should they be pressed to the vote and I ask other members not to move their amendments in this group. If they are moved, I invite the committee to reject them.
The Convener
I ask John Finnie to wind up on amendment 17.
John Finnie
I have nothing to add, thank you, convener.
The Convener
Thank you very much, Mr Finnie, for being so succinct. I ask Pauline McNeill to wind up on amendment 17C and to press or withdraw it.
Pauline McNeill
I intend to press amendment 17C and to move amendments 17A, 17B and 17D. There is no point in this Parliament passing laws on anti-poverty measures and then not making sure that they are in the framework. I included single parents because they are recorded as being one of the groups that profile as being the lowest paid, and lone parents are specifically mentioned in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 for that reason. I will not be moving amendments 17E and 17F.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17C be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 10, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17C disagreed to.
Amendment 17A moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17A disagreed to.
Amendment 17D moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17D be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17D disagreed to.
Amendments 17E, 17F and 17G not moved.
12:15Amendment 17H moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17H be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17H disagreed to.
Amendments 17I, 17J, 17K, 17L, 17M and 17N not moved.
Amendment 17O moved—[Maurice Corry].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17O be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17O disagreed to.
Amendment 17P moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17P be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17P disagreed to.
Amendment 17Q moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17Q be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17Q disagreed to.
Amendment 17R moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17R be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17R disagreed to.
Amendments 17T, 17U and 17V not moved.
Amendment 17B moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17B disagreed to.
Amendment 17S moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17S be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17S disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 18A moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 18A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18A disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment 19 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 20, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 21 to 24, 24A and 25.
John Finnie
Amendment 20 would give Scottish ministers the power to make regulations on enforcement of the workplace parking licensing scheme. They would include penalty charges for which the occupier would be liable. In practice, it is expected that enforcement would focus on issues such as occupiers not being licensed, or providing a higher number of workplace parking places than are covered by the licence that is held.
Amendment 21 would give Scottish ministers the power to specify approved devices for collection of evidence and the process for using that evidence in proceedings relating to possible failure to comply with a workplace licensing scheme. I understand that in Nottingham, for example, mobile cameras are used to monitor enforcement.
Amendment 22 sets out the enforcement and investigation powers that will be available to local authorities, including rights of entry. Those are tightly focused and targeted on investigating breaches of requirements of licensing schemes and licence conditions, as well as serving of penalty charge notices. The powers include rights of entry and to require production of information and to keep a copy of that information. The power of entry could not be used to gain access to premises that are used as a dwelling.
Amendment 23 would allow a warrant to be obtained from a sheriff to exercise the enforcement powers in amendment 24 when access to premises has been, or is likely to be, refused, or when premises are unoccupied.
Amendment 24 sets out conditions for exercise of the powers in amendment 22. It would require that a warrant be enforced
“at a reasonable time of day”.
The authorised person who enforces the warrant must provide proof of their “identity and authorisation”, if that is requested. The authorised person can
“take ... other persons, and ... equipment”
as required. If they remove any items, they must leave a statement of what has been taken and who took it. When premises are unoccupied, they must be left as secure as they were on entry.
Amendment 24 also creates offences where a person refuses to comply with a reasonable instruction or is obstructive. I am rather surprised by amendment 24A, which seeks to remove those offences. Any reasonable person would expect schemes of this nature to come with enforcement provisions. I can only imagine that amendment 24A is intended in effect to hobble enforcement of the scheme and, thus, the scheme itself. I therefore cannot support amendment 24A.
Amendment 25 deals with the powers of entry on to Crown land and would require that certain permissions be obtained before those powers could be exercised. That is a standard approach when powers of entry may be exercised in relation to such land; it does not mean that those who are named would be exempt from the workplace parking licensing scheme.
I move amendment 20.
The Convener
I call amendment 24A, which is in the name of Liam Kerr, and which Jamie Greene will speak to.
Jamie Greene
As Liam Kerr is not here, I will do my best to interpret amendment 24A. It would leave subsections (7) and (8) out of the new section that amendment 24 seeks to insert in the bill. As John Finnie said, it seeks to remove the language to do with a person committing an offence, how they might do that and what the liability would be for committing such an offence.
I understand that Liam Kerr is unhappy with the idea that, under the levy, people will be able to seek warrants to force their way into businesses, and that business owners might be committing an offence if they do not comply. Workplace parking licensing schemes will be set up in a way that could criminalise people if they are deemed not to be enforcing the provisions of such a scheme. I do not think that we should criminalise employers for providing parking.
An amendment to a transport bill is an odd place in which to create an offence that could result in convictions and fines of up to the statutory maximum. I wonder what effect that could have on people’s criminal records and whether it could have negative effects on individuals or companies.
I think that that is the premise of Mr Kerr’s amendment 24A. He might wish to explore the matter further by lodging an amendment at stage 3. His premise is that it would send a terrible message if we were to give people sweeping powers to issue warrants and force their way into businesses simply to enforce this ridiculous tax.
The Convener
No other member has indicated that they wish to speak. For members’ information, I intend to press on until the end of this group of amendments, which will take us slightly over time. Once the cabinet secretary has spoken and John Finnie has wound up, there will be a series of votes.
Michael Matheson
John Finnie’s amendments 20 to 25 seek to put in place enforcement provisions in relation to workplace parking licensing schemes. Such schemes are to be enforced by way of civil penalty charges.
Amendment 20 would give the Scottish ministers the power to set out the detail on matters such as the level of charges, when charges should be imposed, and reviews and appeals of charges.
Amendment 21 would give the Scottish ministers a further power to approve devices for use in enforcement of licensing schemes, and allow evidence from those devices to be used for enforcement purposes.
Amendments 22 to 24 seek to confer enforcement powers in respect of workplace parking licensing schemes on persons who are authorised by local authorities to exercise those powers. The powers are narrowly constrained so that they may be used only to investigate breaches of scheme requirements or licence conditions, or to serve penalty charge notices. It is anticipated that, in such cases, entry to premises would be arranged by agreement, although there is a power to obtain a warrant from a sheriff when entry is refused.
I consider the powers that amendments 20 to 25 seek to confer to be necessary and proportionate in enabling effective monitoring and enforcement of workplace parking licensing schemes. They contain significant safeguards against misuse, and I support them.
I do not support amendment 24A, in the name of Liam Kerr. It is not clear why Mr Kerr proposes that obstructing a duly authorised enforcement officer, who exercises powers conferred under an act of this Parliament, should go unpunished. Although, in practice, such an offence would be used sparingly, if the option were not available, there would be nothing to discourage licence holders and others from refusing to co-operate with those who are tasked with monitoring compliance with workplace parking licensing schemes.
In summary, I reiterate my support for John Finnie’s amendments and ask committee members to support them. I ask that amendment 24A not be moved. I ask that committee members reject it, if it is moved.
12:30John Finnie
I will make no further comment. I press amendment 20.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Amendment 21 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Amendment 24 moved—[John Finnie].
Amendment 24A not moved.
The Convener
I ask John Finnie to press or to seek to withdraw amendment 24.
John Finnie
I press amendment 24.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[John Finnie].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Amendment 318 not moved.
The Convener
That is as far as we can go today. We will continue next week.
Richard Lyle
For the benefit of anybody watching, I intimate again that I cannot make it to the next meeting. I have been allowed off next Wednesday, and my substitute member will be here.
The Convener
You have not been “allowed off”; you are going to be away. However, the point is duly noted.
I thank everybody for taking part in today’s meeting. I remind members that amendments to the remaining sections of the bill should be lodged with the clerks in the legislation team by 12 noon on Thursday 20 June. That concludes today’s business.
Meeting closed at 12:35.19 June 2019
Fourth meeting on amendments
Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 26 June 2019:
Fourth meeting on amendments transcript
The Convener
Item 3 is the continuation of our consideration of stage 2 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, and his supporting officials. I also welcome the non-committee members who are present. Christine Grahame is standing in for Richard Lyle, who is away today.
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Excuse me, I do not think that I have been here as a committee substitute before, have I?
The Convener
You have indeed.
Christine Grahame
That is all right; I do not have to declare any interests.
The Convener
We remember you, even if you do not remember us. [Laughter.]
Christine Grahame
I will take that in the way in which it was intended.
The Convener
You can make a declaration, if you want to do so.
I will explain the procedure briefly for anyone who is watching. There will be one debate on each group of amendments and I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention. If he has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate.
The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of the other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to vote on that amendment.
If any member does not move their amendment when called, they should say “not moved”. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list. Only committee members will be allowed to vote and voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members raise their hands clearly in the air so that the clerk can record a vote. The committee is also required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate moment.
After section 58
The Convener
The first group of amendments is on the recovery of unpaid parking charges. Amendment 260, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is grouped with amendments 261 to 268, 268A, 269 to 278, 319, 279 and 280.
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
This group is a package of amendments that seek to introduce the concept of keeper liability in relation to charges for parking on private land. I appreciate that it is quite a legally complex area and that the committee has not previously taken evidence on the matter. Accordingly, if members will bear with me, I will set out some of the background to the issue and put the amendments in context.
I have a long-term interest in trying to improve the regulation of private car parks in Scotland. It is driven by my constituency mailbag, in that I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who have been hit with what they believe are unfair penalty charges from unscrupulous private car park companies. Many of those charges originated at a particular car park in the centre of Perth, but since I have raised the issue, I have been contacted by people from right across Scotland who have faced similar difficulties.
I have had experience, as I am sure have other members, of people coming to me about penalty notices not being fairly issued. They have been issued because people have simply overstayed their parking by five minutes or less; because someone has correctly paid for their parking but inadvertently entered the wrong digit into a parking pay machine; or because the system for paying has been unduly complex and confusing. In some cases, the penalty charges have been extortionate, with a basic charge of £60 or £80 rising to £160. Often, those charges are then passed on to debt collectors and individuals are bombarded with threatening letters that indicate that court proceedings will be taken if they do not pay up. For many people, particularly the vulnerable or elderly, the whole situation can be very distressing and they end up paying those charges, even though they might not be properly due.
My research has led me to understand that there is no specific legislation in Scotland dealing with the regulation of parking on private land and that it is covered at present by the general law of contract. That is a situation where Scotland has fallen behind other parts of the United Kingdom. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which governs the situation in England, introduced an independent appeals system known as parking on private land appeals, or POPLA. It means that those who are hit with a penalty charge have recourse to an independent appeals system.
That has never applied in Scotland and we have a situation here whereby a penalty notice can be challenged only by going to the company that issued it in the first place, which is clearly a very unsatisfactory situation. In addition to introducing an independent appeals system, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduced keeper liability as part of a balanced package of reform.
My interest in the subject led me to introduce in December 2017 a member’s bill proposal for regulation of privately operated car parking in Scotland. I proposed that the bill would cover five issues that I believed were necessary for reform: first, legislating for a maximum charge that could be recovered as a penalty for breaching the rules of parking on private land; secondly, introducing regulation for uniform signage to avoid the present confusing situation; thirdly, regulation for the appearance of penalty charge notices to make it clear that they are civil payments and to differentiate them from local authority-issued parking tickets; fourthly, the introduction of an independent appeals system in Scotland so that we mirror the situation in England and Wales; and, fifthly, the introduction of keeper liability in Scotland.
I ran a consultation on the proposed bill and received 136 responses, including from industry groups, consumer rights organisations and the general public. There was overwhelming support in principle for better regulation, with 93 per cent of those responding supporting it and only 4 per cent opposing it. I subsequently had very positive engagement around those issues with the former transport minister, Humza Yousaf, and the current cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson. The Scottish Government has always accepted the need for reform in the area concerned.
While I was carrying on that work, Sir Greg Knight, who is a Westminster MP, introduced a private member’s bill—the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill—that had cross-party and Government support and is now an act. Sir Greg’s act introduces for the first time a statutory code of practice for car park operators, which will be rigorously policed. The act ties compliance with the code to access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency records. At present, a car parking company can pursue car owners only if it can identify them. To do that, it must have access to the DVLA database. In the past, the DVLA was happy essentially to sell that information to anyone with a genuine interest but, in the future, only companies that comply with a statutory code of practice will be able to access the records. Without that access, a company’s penalty notices will in effect be unenforceable.
Last year, this Parliament agreed to a legislative consent motion to ensure that the act applies in Scotland as well as south of the border. That deals with the first four points that I consulted on, as it will bring in an independent appeals system and address the other issues.
That leaves only keeper liability outstanding, which needs to be legislated for separately. I discussed the matter with the Scottish Government and we agreed that the Transport (Scotland) Bill would be an appropriate legislative vehicle for bringing in the reforms.
Having set out the background, I turn to the amendments. Keeper liability will make the registered keeper of a vehicle liable in the first instance for paying reasonable penalty charges for parking on private land. At present, under the general law of contract, a vehicle’s driver is deemed to be liable for any charges that arise when parking on private land, because the car’s driver enters into a contract with the landowner or car park operator. That leads to an obvious difficulty with enforcement, as the landowner or car park operator has to prove who the vehicle’s driver was, which in practice can be extremely difficult.
Keeper liability allows penalty charges to be pursued against the registered keeper in the first instance. Alternatively, to avoid liability, the registered keeper can identify who the driver was, and the driver can then be pursued.
Keeper liability already exists as a concept in Scots law for those who park on public land. Anyone who parks on a public street and receives a parking ticket will find that it is addressed to the registered keeper. The concept also exists in relation to the likes of speeding offences—someone who is caught by a fixed speed camera receives a notice that is addressed to the registered keeper; if they were not the vehicle’s driver at the time, they can pass responsibility on to that person. That issue has been at the heart of high-profile court cases in recent times.
Why should we support keeper liability in today’s context? It is important to view it in the context of the wider reforms that I described. As part of a package of law reforms, it is intended to bring in a fair balance between the car driver’s rights and the legitimate rights of a landowner or car park company to recover costs for breach of contract.
I understand from the Scottish Government—I have no doubt that the cabinet secretary will confirm this in due course—that the introduction of keeper liability is intended to be tied to the date of introduction of the new statutory code of practice, which deals with the other concerns that I identified. I would certainly not support keeper liability as a standalone measure; it needs to be seen in the wider context.
In the consultation that I ran as part of my member’s bill proposal, 35 per cent of respondents were in favour of keeper liability, 33 per cent were opposed, 15 per cent were neutral and 16 per cent were unsure. The high percentage of neutral or unsure respondents reflects the fact that the concept is quite difficult to understand. Nevertheless, a small majority were more in favour than against.
Only about 25 per cent of penalty charges for parking on private land in Scotland are being paid. There is a high level of uncertainty about where the law stands, and there is an urban myth, which is untrue, that such charges are not enforceable in law. Such uncertainty is not good for anyone. Bodies such as Citizens Advice Scotland have done excellent campaigning work on the subject, and everyone agrees that we need greater certainty.
The issue does not concern only commercial car parks. Many businesses and private individuals have a legitimate interest in protecting their car parking spaces. For example, at present, owners of flats in city centre developments with allocated parking spaces find it impossible in a practical sense to enforce their rights over their parking spaces without keeper liability. Their parking spaces are filled up by random members of the public coming in to get free parking rather than paying for it. That means that the people who have paid for parking spaces cannot actually use them. The same might apply to a shop with allocated customer parking or a business that has parking attached for its staff. Keeper liability ensures that these rights, which already exist in law, are much more easily enforced.
09:15I thank the Scottish Government for all its support in drafting the amendments and for its co-operation.
Amendments 268A and 319, in the name of Pauline McNeill, seek to amend my amendments. As far as I can determine, they seek to ensure that any enforcement of notices can be done only by a public body. I cannot see how such an arrangement would work in practice.
The enforcement of notices for parking on private land is a civil matter between the landowner or their agent on the one hand, and the driver or keeper of the vehicle on the other. There is no locus for any public body to become involved, and no public body has an interest in the enforcement of the notices.
Moreover, I cannot see what public body or bodies would get involved in trying to resolve these matters. The Scottish Government has no interest in spending taxpayers’ money on getting involved in resolving disputes between commercial companies and private individuals, nor have local authorities any interest in getting involved. There are simply no public bodies or agencies that have the capacity to take on such work.
I fear that Pauline McNeill’s amendments, although they may be well intentioned, are essentially wrecking amendments that drive a coach and horses through the carefully balanced package of reform that I have been trying to take forward with the help of the Scottish Government. I therefore urge Pauline McNeill to withdraw her amendments.
I am happy to move amendment 260.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
Amendment 268A would ensure that only someone who is employed by a public body could issue a parking enforcement notice, and that private companies could not be contracted by local authorities to issue parking enforcement notices. Amendment 268A would prevent private companies from issuing tickets with no authority to do so.
I want to set out why Murdo Fraser’s amendments give me cause for concern, and why I lodged probing amendment 268A. First, I thank Murdo Fraser for his thorough explanation: that is the first time that I have heard the reasoning behind his amendments. Committee members are only too familiar with the fact that there is no requirement at stage 2 to submit a notice alongside amendments, so members can only read the amendments and try to understand what the member who has lodged them is trying to achieve.
Murdo Fraser’s amendments would give to private companies wide-ranging powers that have not been tested, which causes me concern. My constituents in Glasgow have had no say about what I think would be quite sweeping powers. The amendments would introduce new keeper liabilities—apparently, because Scotland has fallen behind England in this area. I think that that idea should be examined. In many cases, Scotland does things differently—wheel clamping, for example, is not legal in Scotland, whereas it has taken England some time to legislate on that. Falling behind England in such matters does not give me cause for concern.
As Murdo Fraser rightly said—I agree with him whole-heartedly on this point—the private car park industry has been notorious for giving drivers record-breaking parking tickets. In the first quarter of 2018, 1.5 million sets of vehicle records from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency were applied for. Murdo Fraser mentioned the work that CAS has done. It noted that in 2015 the highest number of hits on its website were in relation to this issue. A parking notice is issued every five seconds, and the DVLA is on course to share 6.5 million records with private firms. I ask committee members to consider whether they are satisfied that a code of conduct would be enough when the industry has, for the most part, a poor reputation among our constituents.
Murdo Fraser said that only 25 per cent of fines are paid. Perhaps that is because people feel that they are being fined unfairly, which has been my experience with constituents. Car parks are owned by a variety of companies, including pension funds and finance companies. The cases that I know best are those involving town centre car parks, for which the rights have been sold to companies. Many supermarkets have done that. A lot of the cases that I get involve people who parked in a supermarket car park, went a short time over the period for which they were allowed to stay, and were issued with a parking notice.
There is a remedy for the issue that Murdo Fraser outlined of people parking in spaces in housing estates, where they are not supposed to park. People have written to me about that issue. Members might be familiar with the Dundee case in which Ms Mackie, who was a persistent offender, parked in a residents’ parking bay that was for permit holders only. There is a remedy because, at the end of the day, there is a contractual obligation that can be enforced in court. As Murdo Fraser said, that is a civil matter.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member take an intervention?
Pauline McNeill
Yeah—she said with grace. [Laughter.]
The Convener
That did not sound very excited.
Pauline McNeill
I know from 15 years of experience what taking an intervention from Stewart Stevenson might lead to. [Laughter.]
The Convener
I am sure that he is going to come in with some pearl of wisdom.
Stewart Stevenson
It is not a pearl of wisdom; it is a genuine question. In essence, Pauline McNeill proposes that only public agents could recover what are private debts. There are other examples where that sort of thing happens, such as policing at football matches, for which football clubs are charged. Is it the member’s intention that the private body that is seeking to recover the private debt and that is compelled to use a public officer to do so would have to pay a fee to the public body that employs the officer for providing that service?
Pauline McNeill
That is a fair question. I emphasise that amendment 268A is a probing amendment. I suggest that there should be some public oversight of the private industry. If the committee agrees to Murdo Fraser’s amendments, they will give far-reaching powers and will introduce keeper liability, which I will come on to address. I suggest a code of conduct that is not statutory. The committee needs to be careful.
The registered keeper cannot be held liable unless it can be established that they were driving the car when the alleged breach took place. In effect, that makes it difficult for parking companies to enforce tickets against the registered keeper. However, we should bear it in mind that many of those companies seek to enforce notices on very thin grounds.
We have heard about the code of conduct that was the subject of a legislative consent motion on a UK bill that was introduced by Greg Knight MP. That code of conduct is entirely about trying to regulate the private parking industry, and it is a good thing. However, the introduction of keeper liability through Murdo Fraser’s amendments would go way beyond what the code of conduct seeks to do. As I said, motorists in England have probably experienced a more draconian approach by the private car parking industry because of the framing of the legislation there. In Scotland, there is what has been described as a loophole, but I do not believe that it is a loophole at all.
Murdo Fraser’s amendments are about enforcement. Amendment 266 goes further than the powers that even the police have under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 by stipulating that, if a driver cannot “conveniently be contacted”, the registered keeper would become liable. I ask members to test what the word “conveniently” means. If the keeper of a vehicle were to be pursued and said that their son was driving the car, what attempts would be made to find the driver? After all, it was the driver of the vehicle and not the keeper who breached the rules. Keeper liability makes the keeper liable no matter what, which cannot be right. The registered keeper could give the correct details, but it might be decided that it is not convenient to make the necessary inquiries. Who decides what “convenient” is? We have no guidance on what that means—I certainly could not find any.
Amendment 260 states:
“It is immaterial for the purposes of this Part whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked”.
To me, that is a sweeping statement to have in an amendment. In plain English, that suggests to me that permission does not really matter. I suggest that amendment 260 should certainly not have got past Scottish ministers, because the provision in relation to keeper liability is far wider than what exists at the moment.
I accept that there are problems in relation to private dwellings. I have been contacted by businesses, including Barclays, which said that it has 3,000 parking spaces and wants to ensure that there are remedies, given that a lot of companies put up barriers. I have serious concerns about the amendments. I know that arguments need to be tested, which is what stage 2 is for, but the provisions in Murdo Fraser’s amendments are quite wide.
As I said, Scotland has done things differently. There will be a code of practice, but we have not had a chance to discuss what the code will mean. If we are to introduce keeper liability as part of the code of practice, we need to be sure that the code of conduct, along with keeper liability, will not result in more of our constituents being affected.
Murdo Fraser’s amendments would create an offence of parking by trespassing. Trespassing is not a feature of Scots law, so why should we now accept in Scots law a principle that we have not accepted previously? Believe you me: if the amendments are agreed to, more of our constituents will be affected—albeit that there will be a code of conduct, so there might be a limit, but we do not know what the limit will be. There are too many uncertainties. I ask the committee to scrutinise the issue very closely before such provisions are passed into law.
The Convener
A few members have indicated that they wish to speak. I ask Murdo Fraser, when he sums up, to clarify the position in relation to the code of conduct and whether there will be a statutory obligation. I also ask him to clarify whether non-compliance with the code of conduct would help anyone who wanted to appeal against a ticket. For reference, I admit that I have been caught by such a system on two occasions, but that will not affect how I vote—much.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
From what Murdo Fraser has said, I understand that he has put a great deal of work into his amendments. However, the committee has been blindsided by them. I understand that he has worked with the cabinet secretary on the matter, but it has not come before the committee. Our job is to examine the proposals that are brought to the committee, but the 23 amendments in the group are in an area that we have not examined. Murdo Fraser could have brought the matter to our attention at stage 1, when we could have taken evidence on the approach, but we have been blindsided.
I could not support the amendments for that reason alone, but I have many more worries about them. One worry is the change from contract law to criminal law. I do not understand why we should make the keeper, rather than the driver, liable under criminal law. That seems to be a complete change.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
We are not proposing to change civil law to criminal law.
Mike Rumbles
You would put the liability into statute.
Michael Matheson
A civil law matter will not be changed to a criminal law matter. We are not doing that at all—it would remain within civil law.
The Convener
Thank you for that intervention. I am sure that you will have a chance to explain your position in detail later.
Mike Rumbles
This is exactly what I mean. The committee has not had the chance to look at the matter: we do not know anything about it. The committee’s job is to examine all the issues.
Murdo Fraser
Mr Rumbles was on the committee last year, so he might remember that it debated a legislative consent memorandum to Sir Greg Knight’s Parking (Code of Practice) Bill. In fact, I remember Mr Rumbles raising then precisely the issues that he is raising now. He is pushing the boundaries a bit by saying that the committee has not looked at the issues, because the committee had a debate at that time to which Mr Rumbles contributed.
Mike Rumbles
I thank Murdo Fraser for that intervention. For the record, I note that there was a very brief debate on a legislative consent motion. We are considering the Transport (Scotland) Bill and we have spent a great deal of time looking at all the issues at stage 1. There has already been controversy around the bill, when my committee colleague, John Finnie, lodged amendments on another issue. At that point, we were able to pause the stage 2 process and take evidence on the subject. We had just a short evidence session, but at least we took evidence on the matter. Murdo Fraser’s proposal would be quite a major change in law, to which we should have given some time.
09:30There are other issues. I am not generally happy about what has happened to protection of information that we give to the state. The state is able to sell those details to private companies; I am not happy about that. The major issue is the change of the focus in law of liability from where it should rightly sit, which is with the driver, to the keeper, which is wrong in principle. I am not happy about that, so I will not support the amendments.
However, the most important reason for not supporting the 23 amendments is that the committee has not had time to do its job properly.
Christine Grahame
I support what is proposed in the amendments. I do not want to patronise Murdo Fraser by praising the clarity of his explanation.
First, such parking is a matter of civil contract, which people do not understand. People drive into a supermarket car park where there is a notice that says that two hours’ parking is free, but there is a fine of £100 for an overstay, which will be only £50 if they pay it in a couple of days, but they do not understand that that is a contract. In law, that is an invitation to treat—in other words, if they drive in and park, that is the contract that they are entering into, and if they overstay their time that is a breach of contract for which there is a fine.
It brings clarity if we let people know that—it has happened before in areas where there has previously been free car parking.
Secondly, as the law stands, the driver is the person who is liable, because they are the person who read the notice, made the contract and breached it. However, the penalty notice goes to the keeper of the vehicle because that is all that the company has access to, through the registration number.
As you were, convener, I was recently caught for going five minutes over a time limit. That is not why I think that the proposal is a good idea: it is good because it would bring clarity to the law. The notice said that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle and that
“we have been told that you were the driver”.
No one had told the company that I was the driver—it just put that in the notice. If we agree to the amendments, issuing such notices will have legal status, although they will remain civil matters. Clarity is the important thing. It is important that people and the private parking companies—whatever anyone thinks of the money that they make, which is irrelevant because we are talking about contracts—know where they are. If the provision were to become law and a vehicle keeper received a notice such as I received, they would know that it was legitimate and that they are liable if they do not declare who the driver was.
Mike Rumbles
I am puzzled as to why Christine Grahame thinks that it is fair, right and proper that someone who is not responsible for driving the vehicle should suddenly become responsible under the bill?
Christine Grahame
The amendments would exempt stolen and hired cars. The keeper has given leave to someone to drive that car and they have responsibility for that vehicle. At the moment, the private companies say it anyway, although they have no right to say it and there is no appeal. Many of the things that the amendments would introduce would make it clear to all parties that it is a contractual matter. Contract law would prevail. That is why I cannot support amendment 268A.
Pauline McNeill
Will the member give way?
Christine Grahame
Let me just finish. Why should public authorities get involved in private contracts? They are a matter for the courts.
Pauline McNeill
Many car parks are revenue streams for companies, which is why they pursue people pretty hard. How can we stop that from happening? If we want to stop that from happening, we can do it by putting the code of conduct, which is simply a code, into statute. Surely, in order to balance the provision with protection for people, we want both aspects to be in statute?
Christine Grahame
I think that you are mixing that up with the fact that companies charge too much. Fines can be heavy and one can end up with a £100 fine for being five minutes over the time limit. Such car parks are revenue streams: do not think that I am happy about that. The point is that people are entering into contracts and so should be told of the possible outcome. The public can only not go into the car parks or come out early and leave them empty. Vote with your car.
Mike Rumbles
Will the member give way?
Christine Grahame
For heaven’s sake! I will let Murdo Fraser defend his own amendments, if you do not mind. [Laughter.] I am not here in lieu of Murdo.
The Convener
I am going to move on. I should say that committee members, and Christine Grahame, should try to speak through the chair rather than just have conversations “across the chamber”—as Christine Grahame usually says to me. [Laughter.]
I will go to Colin Smyth and John Finnie.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
The amendments represent a significant change and, as Mike Rumbles said, the committee has not taken any evidence on keeper liability, which has been introduced quite late in the process at stage 2. The Government appears to support the amendments, but no evidence has been brought to the committee to show that. The Government has not put the matter in its own transport bill, despite the fact that it claims to support the proposal.
The conduct of some private car parking firms is well documented. Murdo Fraser’s member’s bill contained proposals to tackle a large number of issues relating to private car parking firms, and four out of the five issues have been tackled. However, not one person has written to me to say that keeper liability is a particular concern for them—that is not the problem with private car parking firms. The issue is the failure of such firms to follow the existing rules, whether it be on signage or making it clear to people that they could be fined.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Does Colin Smyth accept that, as well as some parking companies behaving appallingly, some drivers behave appallingly? There is a shopping centre near me where people sometimes park in spaces for the disabled just before 9 o’clock in the morning, run off to the bus, and then they come back at 5 o’clock, because it is cheaper to park in a space like that than it is to pay in the city centre. Does the member accept that there is bad behaviour on both sides?
Colin Smyth
There is, indeed, but the amendments would do nothing to tackle bad behaviour. The reality is that companies persistently abuse the existing rules. We have a code of practice that is not even statutory. Maybe that is the issue that should be addressed if we are to tackle the problem without adding an entirely new section to the bill.
I am concerned that the Government has done no consultation whatsoever on the issue: I have no idea what any organisation believes about the proposal that is before us. I am supportive of the UK legislation that was passed recently that tackled most of my earlier concerns, but I have a real issue with the committee being asked to agree to something that consists of 23 amendments—almost a bill in itself, frankly—and which should, therefore, be properly consulted on.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
I listened intently to what Mr Fraser said. Ordinarily, I would expect to find myself at the polar opposite to Mr Fraser on the issue of private companies, but that is not the case on this occasion. This is a measured response to the issue.
Similarly, if I, as someone who frequently goes on about private companies and is concerned about data protection, had such concerns about Mr Fraser’s proposal, I would hope to articulate them today. However, I do not.
On the question of scrutiny, the committee does not take evidence on every conceivable thing. It is incumbent on us all to look at proposals and do our very best to understand and clarify them on the day. I am satisfied that there is clarity on the issue and that Mr Fraser has proposed a measured response.
Mike Rumbles
It will be quite a major change in the law—it is not just an extra that has been brought to the committee. I will give you one example, and the member will perhaps tell me whether he thinks this is fair. I was in Edinburgh and my car was in Aberdeenshire, yet I got one of these notices because I had overparked, apparently. It could not have happened because I was here, in the Parliament, in Edinburgh. If we had changed the law like this, I would have become liable for whoever had used my car. Is that right? Are we not taking personal responsibility away from individuals?
John Finnie
I think that we are bringing responsibility into the situation. The reality is that hire cars and stolen cars are connected with the obligations of motor vehicle ownership, one of which is to ensure that we do our best to comply with regulations.
Regarding Pauline McNeill’s amendments, I do not see that issue. I am very supportive of the public sector, but I do not see a role in this matter for those—
Pauline McNeill
Will the member give way?
The Convener
You have had a good chance. We are 40 minutes into the first group of amendments.
Mike Rumbles
On a point of order, convener. In the recent stage 3 debates in the chamber, the Presiding Officer was quite strong in his view that members were speaking for too long. He said that there should be ample time to debate properly at stage 2. If we are curtailed in what we are trying to do at stages 2 and 3, I worry about how we are doing our job.
The Convener
I always agree absolutely with the Presiding Officer; I am just asking people to be mindful that we have time limits and we have had quite a full debate on the issue. It is up to Mr Finnie whether he wants to take the intervention, but the cabinet secretary still needs to come in and summarise the points, as does Murdo Fraser.
John Finnie
I will leave it, given the time restraints that there may be. I have concluded.
Michael Matheson
As Mr Fraser has outlined, we have worked closely with our UK counterparts to regulate the private parking industry and ensure that its practices are transparent, consistent and, most of all, fair to everyone. I welcome the detail that was provided by Mr Fraser to highlight the importance of consistency and fairness to residents, motorists and landowners who are trying to effectively manage car parking that can be used by everyone.
We are working closely with the UK Government on the matter and with a range of stakeholders on the development of a statutory code of practice that will specify in detail how private car parks are to be managed. These amendments complement that work because, although we are using legislative tools to ensure best practice across the car parking industry, we are also ensuring that the industry can operate effectively, fairly and consistently across the UK.
Amendment 268A, in the name of Pauline McNeill, seeks to amend amendment 268 to require that parking notices that are served on drivers for the purposes of meeting one of the conditions that are required for the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper can be served only by public bodies, thereby attempting to render inoperable the keeper liability provisions that are promoted by Murdo Fraser. Keeper liability is not a new concept to Scots law; it is already used in Scotland by 21 local authorities that have decriminalised parking enforcement powers and that issue penalty charge notices to motorists who contravene on-street parking legislation.
However, the private parking industry is largely governed by contract law and, under that law, the vehicle’s driver is responsible for any parking charges that may arise if they contravene any of the terms and conditions of the parking contract. Currently, private car park operators can charge for parking, but only operators who are members of an accredited trade association can obtain vehicle keeper information from the DVLA for parking enforcement purposes.
The keeper liability amendments that have been lodged by Murdo Fraser will tackle a misconception that is held by many motorists in Scotland who think that parking charge notices that are issued by private parking operators are not legally enforceable and can, therefore, be ignored. Amendment 268A is technically deficient, as the amendments that were lodged by Murdo Fraser will not apply to public roads, local authorities or state-controlled parking places or to any land that is subject to statutory control—they apply to private land.
09:45Pauline McNeill
Are you satisfied with the drafting of the amendments on keeper liability, cabinet secretary? I am thinking, in particular, of the provision that I mentioned, which talks about a driver who cannot “conveniently be contacted”?
Michael Matheson
Sorry, which provision are you referring to?
Pauline McNeill
I am talking about subsection (1) of the new section that amendment 266 would insert. There is the issue of keeper liability, but the amendments that we are talking about seem to go further than section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, because amendment 266 refers to a driver who cannot “conveniently be contacted”. Are you content with that drafting? How would the provision be interpreted? “Conveniently” can mean a whole lot of things, as I said. I do not think that Police Scotland, for example, would use that term in relation to keeper liability.
Michael Matheson
We are confident that the amendments are correctly drafted, because it is about the residence of the keeper of the property, but I am more than happy to check the point that you have raised and offer further clarification.
Amendment 319, in the name of Pauline McNeill, would introduce a prohibition on the recovery of unpaid parking charges by private companies, by adding a new provision that would prevent recovery of unpaid parking charges by
“a person who is not acting in the course of employment by a public body.”
Amendment 319 goes on to define “public body” for the purposes of this part of the bill.
The effect of amendment 319 would be to prevent private car parking operators from recovering unpaid car park charges. That is exactly the opposite of what Murdo Fraser is looking to do through the amendments that he has lodged.
Mike Rumbles
Will you clarify something, cabinet secretary? We are deficient in that we have not taken evidence on the proposal. As I understand it, if there is a speeding offence, the keeper of the vehicle is contacted and, in law, they are required to identify the driver, if they know who that was. There have been a couple of rather high-profile such cases in the courts.
Why, then, is there a need to move to keeper liability? I will use a personal example. I was in Edinburgh but my car was in Aberdeenshire, and the driver of my car overstayed in a car park; therefore, I got the penalty. I was not obliged to say who the driver was. Surely, the way to make the law consistent is to ensure that the law that we have in relation to speeding applies in the context that we are talking about. Therefore, we do not move to keeper liability; we tackle the person who was responsible for the offence.
Michael Matheson
A road traffic offence is a criminal law matter. The principle of keeper liability applies in that the notice of a speeding offence will be issued to the keeper. There is then a legal obligation on the keeper, under criminal law, to disclose whether they were driving the car or whether another party was doing so. The difference with this is that it is civil law—it is contract law. The vehicle that enters the site—or whoever is driving it—must comply with contract law, and the keeper is liable under contract law. So it is—
Mike Rumbles
The vehicle is an inanimate object. The person who is doing it is the driver.
Michael Matheson
But it is the person who owns the car that is using up that particular—
Mike Rumbles
But it is the driver who put it there—
Michael Matheson
The car is using up that particular piece of parking space, which is why it comes under contract law, which is a civil matter—[Interruption.]
The Convener
Can we please not have conversations in the committee? Please contribute in the formal way. Cabinet secretary, you may take interventions, by all means, but I ask you and Mr Rumbles not to have a conversation.
Michael Matheson
The principal difference here is that it is about the vehicle that is parked in the space. The person who drives a vehicle over a particular speed is committing a criminal offence, not entering into a contract, as is the case when a car is parked in a parking space. That is why there is a different arrangement.
Furthermore, amendment 319 would, in effect, modify the Scots law of contract to render persons operating car parks unable to enforce the terms of the parking contract that the drivers had entered into. Simply put, that would enable every driver to park in a private car park without paying a fee in full knowledge that the company could never recoup any charges from them. I am certain that that is not a position that anyone in this Parliament would wish to encourage.
The parking industry is undergoing change for the better, and the amendments that have been lodged by Murdo Fraser seek to deliver consistency and fairness to operators and motorists alike. The Scottish Government supports Mr Fraser’s amendments. However, I ask Pauline McNeill not to move amendments 268A and 319. If they are moved, I urge the committee not to support them.
Murdo Fraser
I will try to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, which has been helpful in exposing some of the issues. Pauline McNeill made some very good points in relation to her amendments, and I agree with a lot of what she said. She, Colin Smyth and Mike Rumbles probably made the biggest complaint—if I can put it that way—which was about a lack of consultation in advance of my amendments being lodged. My response is that it is, of course, up to the committee to decide whether it wants to take evidence at stage 2, and it is quite entitled to do that. If committee members wanted to ask for evidence to be taken, they had that option.
We had an evidence session in this committee last year when we debated and voted on a legislative consent motion on the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, so there was discussion around the issues concerned at that time. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, I ran a consultation on the member’s bill proposal. It is therefore not as though there has not been any public engagement by the Parliament around the issues. That process has already been gone through, albeit—I appreciate it—not through this committee.
I agree with Pauline McNeill’s point about the need for public oversight of private industry, which is precisely what the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 does. Both Pauline McNeill and Colin Smyth complained that the code of practice is not statutory. However, that is a misunderstanding, because it is a statutory code of practice. It is set down in regulation by ministers and is, therefore, statutory. Those who do not comply with that statutory code of practice can have sanctions taken against them. The ultimate sanction is that they will be deprived of access to DVLA records, without which they will, in effect, not be able to enforce their penalty notices. That is therefore a severe sanction against them.
Incidentally, I say gently to Pauline McNeill that, although it is a popular view, the idea that trespass is not part of Scots law is not one that many Scots lawyers will recognise.
Pauline McNeill
It is not a major principle.
Murdo Fraser
I am sure that Christine Grahame will confirm that, if we study Scots property law, we will see that trespass does form part of Scots law—so it does exist. However, that is by the by.
Mike Rumbles said that he was not happy about the DVLA selling information to third parties. I agree with his point on that, but that is precisely the ill that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 seeks to deal with. The 2019 act makes it more difficult for companies to acquire information from the DVLA. They will be able to do so only if they can demonstrate compliance with the new statutory code of practice.
Mike Rumbles
The main issue is the moving of liability to the keeper of a vehicle rather than the driver—that is the nub of the issue. However, I have a technical question that I wonder whether Murdo Fraser can address in his summing up. Subsection (2) in amendment 260 states:
“It is immaterial for the purposes of this Part whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land.”
I am not sure what that means. Can Murdo Fraser explain it?
Murdo Fraser
I understand that the amendments are modelled on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which relates to England and Wales. The amendments are modelled on the 2012 act and take their wording from it. As I understand it, the wording is intended to make it clear that the bill relates to the recovery of unpaid parking charges rather than to the question of consent to park on land. I do not know whether that explanation is sufficient to satisfy the member, but it is probably the best that I can do at the moment.
The debate over the past 50 minutes or so has demonstrated very helpfully the lack of certainty around the law and private parking in Scotland. That confusion is at the heart of the problem. Currently, only 25 per cent of parking notices in Scotland are paid. A lot of people think that they can just go in the bin and are not enforceable—in fact, they are enforceable, as the cabinet secretary said. Some people end up being taken to court and a lot of angst and suffering is caused as a result.
We need greater certainty and clarity. I am proposing part of a package of reform that will provide greater certainty and clarity for those who park their vehicles, those who operate the industry and those who have a legitimate interest in protecting their parking spaces. I press amendment 260.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 260 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 260 agreed to.
Amendment 261 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 261 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 261 agreed to.
Amendment 262 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 262 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 262 agreed to.
Amendment 263 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 263 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 263 agreed to.
Amendment 264 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 264 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 264 agreed to.
Amendment 265 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 265 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 265 agreed to.
Amendment 266 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 266 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 266 agreed to.
Amendment 267 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 267 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 267 agreed to.
10:00Amendment 268 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
I call amendment 268A, in the name of Pauline McNeill. [Interruption.] There is nothing better than when it is the convener rather than the clerk who is right.
Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)
That is once in a lifetime.
The Convener
Mr Balfour, please remember that it will be me who gives you the opportunity to speak later in the meeting.
Amendment 268A not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 268 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 268 agreed to.
John Mason
Convener, there seems to be a pattern in the voting. Would it be possible to move the amendments en bloc?
The Convener
I am sure that it would be possible to do anything, but I am told by the clerks that parliamentary procedure means that I have to go through each amendment. Before Christine Grahame comes in and tells me that there is a way around that, I will keep pushing on. I am sorry.
Amendment 269 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 269 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 269 agreed to.
The Convener
The pattern continues.
Amendment 270 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 270 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 270 agreed to.
Amendment 271 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 271 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 271 agreed to.
Amendment 272 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 272 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 272 agreed to.
Amendment 273 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 273 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 273 agreed to.
Amendment 274 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 274 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 274 agreed to.
Amendment 275 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 275 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 275 agreed to.
Amendment 276 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 276 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 276 agreed to.
Amendment 277 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 277 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 277 agreed to.
Amendment 278 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 278 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 278 agreed to.
Amendment 319 not moved.
The Convener
The next group is on the enforcement of parking regulation in the vicinity of schools. Amendment 316, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendment 317.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
I apologise to members, as I have almost lost my voice. The Transport (Scotland) Bill has finished me off. I will keep my comments as brief as possible and hope that broadcasting will ramp up the volume so that I do not have to shout.
I lodged amendment 316 to try to address an issue that many members deal with regularly: parking outside schools. Many of us will drive past schools on the way into the Parliament and see signs that ask people not to park at the entrance or that beg drivers not to park in an obstructive manner, especially on zigzags.
Last year, when we started to discuss regulating pavement parking and double parking, Dundee City Council contacted my office to say that it had an issue with enforcing parking violations outside schools. I was intrigued to hear what the problem was, so we went along to a meeting between the council, traffic wardens and the local police, who regularly enforce traffic violations outside schools.
It was clear that there is a problem. As we have seen in the context of other provisions in the bill, there is a lot of confusion about who enforces what, what powers traffic wardens have in decriminalised areas and what powers the police have. The reality is that the picture is complex, and I would like to think that the committee can deal with the issue in the bill.
Outside many schools, traffic wardens and police officers try to regulate and manage a huge volume of traffic in the morning, and there are many questions about who can do what. Can a traffic warden put a ticket on a car that is parked on double yellow lines? Can a traffic warden put a ticket on a car that is parked on a yellow zigzag that has yellow lines? Can a traffic warden put a ticket on a car that is parked on a yellow zigzag that has no yellow lines or signage? Can a police officer put a ticket on a car that is committing a breach that would ordinarily be enforced by a traffic warden in a decriminalised parking area if there is no traffic warden, regardless of whether there is deemed to be an obstruction? Can a traffic warden issue a ticket to a car that is parked on a white zigzag? I think that I am painting a picture of the complexity of the situation.
In Dundee, there are three full-time parking wardens—or parking attendants—and 15 part-time parking attendants. That is all well and good, but there are 46 schools in Dundee, so a complex buddying structure is required, whereby police officers enforce violations and obstructive parking issues around schools that have big problems and traffic wardens deal with other breaches of decriminalised parking rules.
Where there are no traffic wardens, there are only police officers, but they are unable to issue tickets for breaches that a traffic warden would normally issue. Equally, there are areas where there is only a traffic warden and no police officer and the warden is unable to enforce breaches. I think that that paints a picture of what the problem is.
John Mason
The picture in Glasgow is probably similar to the one that the member paints. There is no way that there are enough police and traffic wardens together to staff all the areas in Glasgow with parking problems outside schools. Does he accept that the answer is not double yellow lines or zigzag lines but exclusion zones round schools, because any lines will not be enforced?
Jamie Greene
The member makes a good point. He is right that the way to address the problem is not to put a police officer and a parking warden outside every school but to use the powers that the Parliament and the minister have to create regulations. Exclusion zones might be the answer. The solution that is proposed in the amendment is to ask the minister to introduce regulations that would create zones around schools by specifying what is the “vicinity of a school” and “days and times” when those zones could be enforced, which would ensure that any car parked in the vicinity would be considered to be creating an obstruction for which the police, for example, could enforce a sanction.
That might not be the answer, but it is certainly a valid proposal. I thank the Parliament’s legislation team for helping me to word amendment 316. The issue is complex, but I ask the Government to take on board what the amendment proposes and work with the committee and members who have an interest in the matter to come up with a solution. Frankly, the status quo is not good enough and does not work.
I am sure that I will hear what the minister thinks of my proposal, but it would be one of addressing the problem by giving powers to police officers to enforce the bits of decriminalised parking outside schools that they currently cannot enforce or by giving parking wardens the power to enforce bits that the police currently enforce outside schools. By the way, I am proposing such powers only for areas around schools and I am not proposing a general mixing of decriminalised parking and police powers, because they are two distinct areas.
The fact is that there is an anomaly about who can enforce what, which is a problem. As John Mason said, we cannot solve that by simply staffing areas with more people, but we can solve it by changing the regulations on enforcement against obstructive behaviour. It is unacceptable that schools are begging drivers not to park in their vicinity. The solution is to say that drivers cannot park beside schools and make that enforceable by somebody, although I do not know who that would be in each circumstance. Of course, some local authorities do not have decriminalised parking and it is up to the police.
It is not right if a police officer and a traffic warden have to be outside a school at the same time in the morning and evening to enforce parking regulations. Those people tell me that they are not happy about that and that the system is not good enough, and I therefore believe that we have a duty to fix it. That is the premise behind my amendment.
I move amendment 316.
The Convener
Two members have indicated that they wish to speak, the first of whom is Mike Rumbles.
Mike Rumbles
Amendment 316 is a good amendment. I have heard the cabinet secretary saying previously in relation to amendments that it is clear what obstructions outside schools are, but I tend to agree with Jamie Greene that we could do with more clarity about that. I am conscious that we have just agreed to 20 amendments in the name of Murdo Fraser that call for clarity, although I think that they will mean that we will see a lot more people before the courts.
Leaving that aside, I think that amendment 316 would require the cabinet secretary to produce regulations to put it beyond doubt that parking around schools in specified circumstances causes an obstruction and I therefore think that we should support it. I heard what Jamie Greene said about working with the minister for an amendment at stage 3, but I think that it is better to get this amendment into the bill at stage 2 and then work with the minister to tinker—if that is the right word—with it in order to get it right beyond doubt at stage 3. It is perhaps worth the minister doing that. I am conscious that I am speaking before the minister speaks and I do not know what he thinks about amendment 316. I hope that Jamie Greene presses the amendment, but if he does not, I will.
10:15Colin Smyth
I very much welcome amendment 316. Jamie Greene has raised an important issue, which we see almost daily in our inboxes. Having said that, I am not convinced that the amendment will tackle what is largely an enforcement issue, and I would be keen to hear what local authorities think about the provisions that the amendment would introduce.
Subsection (2)(e) of the proposed new section calls for the regulations to be enforced by constables. Most councils in Scotland have decriminalised parking enforcement, and the amendment exposes yet again the inconsistencies that exist. Last week, we debated the enforcement of the ban on parking on cycle lanes and discussed the fact that the police can currently enforce such a ban but, even where parking enforcement is decriminalised, councils cannot enforce the ban unless there is a traffic regulation order. The bill sets out that the prohibition on pavement parking will be enforced by councils, even where there is not decriminalised parking. As I have said previously, we would have the crazy situation, in areas where there is not decriminalised parking enforcement, in which a council enforcement officer could walk down the street and ticket a car parked on the pavement but not a car parked on double yellow lines right next to it. The anomalies of decriminalised parking enforcement are not being addressed by the bill. The Government is ducking the issue, which is disappointing given that the bill has given us an opportunity to tackle it.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 316 seeks to place responsibility for enforcing parking at or near schools on the police rather than local authorities. Parking at or in the vicinity of a school has become a growing problem in recent years, and there have been an increasing number of complaints about the impact that that parking has on surrounding residential streets.
Although I appreciate the concerns behind amendment 316, there are some fundamental issues with it. For example, it does not offer a definition of the phrase “vicinity of a school”, which is relegated to subordinate legislation. The phrase could be very difficult to define and may vary depending on a school’s location and site.
The amendment would arguably be unworkable in residential areas, which is where the majority of schools are based, and could result in local residents committing an offence by parking outside their homes. I say that as someone who stays next to a primary school. If the Government had included such a vague and wide-ranging power in the bill, I have no doubt that it would have attracted a great deal of criticism from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.
Furthermore, amendment 316 seeks to create a new criminal offence, which the police will be required to enforce, irrespective of whether the local authority in question has obtained decriminalised parking enforcement powers. That goes against our policy on decriminalised parking enforcement, which seeks to give local authorities full control over parking, thereby freeing up vital police resources.
Finally, as I explained at last week’s meeting when addressing amendments 290 and 291, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on a similar issue, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 already make it an offence, enforceable by the police, to park on the zigzag markings at a school entrance. Should local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers wish to enforce those or prohibit parking during specified times in neighbouring streets, they can do so by including them in a traffic regulation order. The procedure for doing so enables local residents to be given fair notice of parking proposals affecting their area.
Amendments 316 and 317, in the name of Jamie Green, while well meaning, are unworkable in practice and would cut across the right of local authorities to effectively manage parking in their own areas. However, I make a commitment to write to all 21 local authorities that have decriminalised parking enforcement powers to remind them what powers they have and what they can do to enforce parking at or near schools. I am more than happy to discuss the issue with the member in greater detail to consider what further measures can be taken forward.
Mike Rumbles
I want to ask a fundamental question about the regulation of parking outside schools across the country. In your previous discussion of the amendments in the name of Mark Ruskell, you said that you want to get rid of urban myths, saying that such parking is already against the law and that there are powers available to councils. Would you accept that there is genuine confusion as to what is, and is not, allowed, which does not exist for many other traffic regulations that apply throughout the country? Would you agree, in principle, that it would be helpful if the Government introduced a formal set of regulations to clarify exactly what the law says and what it does, and does not, allow?
Michael Matheson
There may be some confusion between clarity and enforcement. Where parking has not been decriminalised, it is for the police to enforce it. As I said, if a vehicle parks on the zigzag markings at a school, the police can enforce that, because the person is committing an offence. Where parking has been decriminalised, it is a matter for the parking enforcement officers from the local authority. However, if the police see a vehicle parked where it is causing an obstruction, they can still issue a notice to that person for committing an offence.
Colin Smyth
Will the member take an intervention?
Michael Matheson
Let me finish the point that I am making.
The issue is about making sure that, where parking has been decriminalised, local authorities are adequately enforcing the provisions that are in place around schools. Even with greater clarity, I suspect that the core issue would be about enforcing the provisions around schools consistently. In my view, a level of clarity already exists, but I am keen to identify ways in which we can offer greater clarity. I suspect that that would not be in regulations but by giving local authorities more detail and reinforcing the information to them. The core of the matter is the issue of enforcement, rather than new legislation being required to deal with it.
Colin Smyth
The cabinet secretary said that he will write to the 21 local authorities that have decriminalised parking to remind them of the requirement for them to enforce it. However, does he accept that, in the 11 local authorities that have not decriminalised parking, responsibility for enforcement rests with Police Scotland, which is failing to enforce parking regulations at the moment? Should the cabinet secretary not also write to Police Scotland to remind it of its responsibilities to enforce parking properly? If the Government’s view is that Police Scotland should no longer enforce parking, you should decriminalise it rather than leaving the current anomalies.
Michael Matheson
Decriminalisation is our preferred option, but it is up to local authorities to choose whether to do that. We cannot force a local authority to take forward a measure if it chooses not to do so. We have a process for local authorities to engage in if they want to decriminalise parking.
The nub of the matter is enforcement and making that adequate. I am happy to take that point away and look at further measures that could be taken to ensure that local authorities are doing more, alongside Police Scotland, about parking issues outside schools. I recognise the challenges that may occur. However, there is also a need for car users to understand the risk at which they put children by being inconsiderate and not considering the implications of their parking behaviour around schools. We can do what we can to encourage greater enforceability, but there is also a personal responsibility on car users to recognise the risks that they create for children by irresponsibly parking in areas around schools where they should not.
Jamie Greene
I want to pick up on a few of the points that the cabinet secretary made. He said that
“in the vicinity of a school”
is difficult to define, but John Mason talked about creating an exclusion zone around schools. By default, that would require there to be a definition of the zone. It would be possible to say that, where the perimeter of the school ends, it is a residential area. When it comes to where people live, it is entirely possible to define what “in the vicinity” means. The bill does not need to provide a definition—I am not asking for that.
The cabinet secretary also said that he had a problem with the fact that the amendment would create an offence of causing an obstruction at a school. That is absolutely what I want to do—that is the whole point of my amendment. Inconsiderate parking outside schools is not just inconsiderate but dangerous, so it should be an offence.
On the enforcement of zigzags—
Michael Matheson
What you have described is already an offence. The amendment seeks to create a new offence over and above the provisions that are already in place for those areas where parking enforcement officers carry out enforcement for local authorities. It would be wrong to give the impression that there is not an existing offence.
Jamie Greene
It would also be wrong to give the impression that there are always traffic wardens and police officers outside schools. It is my understanding that, in decriminalised areas, where there are police officers but not traffic wardens, those officers cannot put tickets on cars that traffic wardens would normally put tickets on.
Michael Matheson
They can.
Jamie Greene
That is not the feedback that I have had from the police.
Michael Matheson
Police officers can still do that even in decriminalised areas.
Jamie Greene
I appreciate that I must move on, so I would like to close by thanking members for taking amendment 316 seriously. It deals with an important issue; it is not a political one. I do not think that just writing to those authorities that have decriminalised parking will be enough; they do not have enough traffic wardens. Dundee City Council is 28 traffic wardens short of being able to police the roads outside every school every day when it has to. It could be argued that that is the council’s problem, but there will be a reason for that, which could be budgetary. It is not good enough just to say that that is the council’s problem.
There are also 11 local authorities that do not have decriminalised parking. The police are not resourced to be outside every school in each of those areas. That would require the deployment of hundreds of additional police officers. That is not happening.
I do not think that the issue is one of enforcement; it is about getting the powers in the right place so that—outside schools only—there is some interchangeability, whereby both traffic wardens and police can ensure that cars are not parked in a dangerous manner. That is all that I am asking the Government to consider. Sending a letter to councils will not be enough. If the cabinet secretary is willing to work with me or any other member who has an interest in the matter to look seriously at what we could do in the bill to address a range of issues around parking and to make sure that we get it right, I would be very happy to work with him or anyone else on that.
The Convener
Do you want to press amendment 316 or to withdraw it?
Jamie Greene
I seek to withdraw it.
The Convener
Does anyone object to Jamie Greene withdrawing amendment 316?
Mike Rumbles
I do.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 316 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 316 disagreed to.
The Convener
The next group is on the duty to consult access panels in relation to proposed cycle tracks. Amendment 259, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.
Jeremy Balfour
Good morning. A journey is only as accessible as its least accessible part. It is important that we remember that, as we look at amendments that I have lodged. We can have the most accessible paths, buses and so on, but unless the whole journey is accessible, one little bit can stop a disabled person being able to get to where they want to go. Many disabled people find their journeys being interrupted at the first stage, on the pavement.
10:30Amendment 259 is not saying that we should not have shared spaces—I think that shared spaces can work really well. The amendment seeks to address the fact that the current inconsistent design of pavements and increased use of shared spaces mean that disabled people find it difficult to get around.
I can give you an example of what I am talking about that exists here in Edinburgh. If you go down Leith Walk from the Playhouse, you will see that, on the left-hand side, there is a shared pathway on most of that road. The only designation to show what is a cycle lane and what is a pavement for pedestrians to walk on is a white line. A person with a visual impairment, complete blindness or another disability can walk on to the cycle path with no warning that they have done so. A number of my constituents and people from across Scotland have given me similar examples.
There are ways around that. Different materials can be used to tell people what part is the cycle path and what part is the area on which pedestrians should walk. That can give people who use dogs or devices to help them with their disability much clearer understanding.
Amendment 259 says that, before any shared spaces are created, the local authority should “consult the access panel” so that it can be involved in evaluation and design of an area. Access panels could offer input, but they would not be able to prevent a shared space from being set up. I hope, however, that information that they could provide would enable shared spaces to be safer and much more accessible.
John Finnie
To my mind, that would be good practice in any case. Is it not happening?
Jeremy Balfour
Practice varies across Scotland. I know that some local authorities just go ahead and put in shared spaces without consulting access panels. Amendment 259 would simply enforce good practice.
The cabinet secretary might tell me that not every local authority has an access panel. I accept that, but I hope that the principle of amendment 259 is acceptable. If it is, I could do what I did last week in relation to my amendments to the Planning (Scotland) Bill, and give amendment 259 slightly wider scope, beyond access panels. I appreciate that not every local authority has an access panel, although I think that the ones that do not are nearly there.
For me, the principle is that we want shared spaces but with clear designation so that disabled people and other individuals—
Christine Grahame
Amendment 259 would make it mandatory for a roads authority to consult an access panel, but as you said, not every local authority has an access panel. If they havenae got one, they cannae consult.
Jeremy Balfour
I will take Mike Rumbles’s position: if the amendments are agreed to, I will be happy to clean up the wording at stage 3. Most local authorities have access panels, and there is a national access panel group that comes together that could also be used. For me, the principle is that we need to ensure that, for the benefit of people with disabilities, there is clear signage and a way of identifying which part of the shared space is a cycle path and which part is for pedestrians.
I move amendment 259.
Colin Smyth
I very much welcome amendment 259, in the name of Jeremy Corbyn—I mean Jeremy Balfour. I am not sure who would be more upset by that comment.
Jeremy Balfour
Corbyn!
Colin Smyth
The accessibility of our transport system and streets has come up quite a few times during our consideration of the bill. Stakeholders have made it clear that the status quo is not good enough. We need to use the opportunity of the bill to strengthen the law in order to underpin improvements. Too often, the needs of disabled people are overlooked in development of cycle lanes, whether we are talking about the needs of disabled cyclists or pedestrians. A previous amendment of mine was on floating bus stops, where cycle lanes run between the bus stop and the pavement, which causes a serious hazard for blind and visually impaired people.
It is clear that there has been insufficient consultation on such arrangements being implemented, either with an access panel or with similar groups that represent the views of disabled people. It would be a welcome addition that would give a clear statutory underpinning to best practice, so I am more than happy to support Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 259.
The Convener
Christine, I was not sure whether your intervention—
Christine Grahame
It was an intervention based on amendment 259’s use of the word “must”.
The Convener
Okay.
Mike Rumbles
Amendment 259 is simply a matter of putting good practice into law and ensuring that it is a requirement. It is a worthwhile amendment. I take Christine Grahame’s point and note Jeremy Balfour’s response to it.
Amendment 259 is not perfect because, obviously, not every local authority will have an access panel, but rather than simply opposing the amendment, it is a good idea to put the provision in the bill and then to work on the wording for stage 3, perhaps with the cabinet secretary, to ensure that the Government is also happy with it. I hope that the Government will not oppose it. I support the amendment. We should get it in at stage 2, then we can come back and look at the provisions again at stage 3 with the full Parliament.
Michael Matheson
Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 259—he is definitely Jeremy Balfour—seeks to place a duty on local authorities to consult an access panel of local residents prior to making a road, or part of a road, a cycle track. Although I fully appreciate the intention behind the amendment, local authorities are already subject to statutory duties that require them to carry out extensive consultation prior to making cycle tracks on their roads.
An order to redetermine a length of road to make it a cycle track is made under section 152(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984—not section 1, as amendment 259 states. The procedure for making such orders is set out in the Stopping Up of Roads and Private Accesses and the Redetermination of Public Rights of Passage (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1986—with which I am sure all committee members are familiar.
The existing consultation requirements go well beyond what is set out in amendment 259. Where any proposal is the subject of an objection that is not withdrawn following a written explanation from the local authority, that proposal is ultimately required to be remitted to Scottish ministers for consideration.
In addition, with respect to accessibility considerations, it should be noted that throughout the redetermination process, local authorities and Scottish ministers have a duty to have regard to the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, I do not consider that we need to impose an additional duty on local authorities, as is proposed in amendment 259—notwithstanding the technical issues relating to the amendment itself.
I am more than happy to engage with Jeremy Balfour prior to stage 3 to consider whether there are further measures that we can take under the existing procedure that would provide greater clarity to the objectives that the member is seeking to achieve. I therefore ask him not to press amendment 259. If it is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.
Jeremy Balfour
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s remarks to some extent, particularly his final remarks about perhaps working with him to see whether we can find something. There is a principle here: yes, local authorities have to consult, but we need to move access panels—where they exist—to a higher level, almost to the level of community councils, such that they become statutory groups. They should be consulted. To expect access panels to know everything that is going on, even just within their area, is asking a lot of volunteers.
On the path here in Edinburgh that I talked about, the access panel did not respond, because it did not know about the proposal until it was too late.
In the light of what the minister has said, I will not press amendment 259 today, but I will be knocking on his door before stage 3.
Amendment 259, by agreement, withdrawn.
Sections 59 and 60 agreed to.
10:40 Meeting suspended.10:45 On resuming—
Section 61—Compliance notices
The Convener
Part 5 of the bill is on road works. Amendment 164, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 320, 165, 166, 325 and 181 to 183.
Michael Matheson
The amendments in this group in my name are largely minor or technical.
The Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 imposes a duty on the Scottish road works commissioner to make the Scottish road works register available for inspection. In practice, the ability to inspect the register does not make information about road works that may be of interest to the general public particularly accessible.
A separate issue is that certain information on the register may be commercially sensitive or give rise to security considerations, and it is not considered that such information should be freely available to the public.
Amendment 165 would change the current approach by requiring the commissioner to make publicly available information on the register about the timing, duration, location and purpose of works in roads. It is intended that that would make such information more accessible than would be the case if members of the public were simply permitted to inspect the register. The Scottish ministers would have powers to prescribe further information to which the commissioner should provide public access.
Amendment 165 would also require the commissioner to make all the information on the register available to persons with authority to carry out works in roads and to those whom the commissioner considers to have a sufficient interest in that information. That would make sure that the information necessary to ensure the safety of any works would be available to those who need it.
Proposed section 60 would insert a new provision in section 61B of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, which currently requires the use of suitably trained operatives and supervisors only where works involve breaking up or tunnelling under the road, or any subsequent reinstatement. However, in practice, roads authorities often undertake activities—such as painting road markings, flushing blockages in road drains and filling in potholes with temporary material—that are unlikely to include any breaking up of the road surface, but may require traffic management and other safety measures on the carriageway.
For safety reasons, it is considered that the carrying out of any works involving traffic management on the carriageway should be subject to similar requirements regarding the use of trained operatives and supervisors, irrespective whether they involve breaking up or reinstating the road, and amendment 166 will secure that.
Amendment 183 will require applications for warrants to exercise enforcement powers and for appeals against compliance notices to be made to sheriffs, rather than to summary sheriffs, as would be the case under the bill as introduced. The amendment follows representations made by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that applications of that kind may be inconsistent with the existing remit of summary sheriffs.
In its stage 1 report on the bill, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee identified an incorrect cross-reference in a provision that would be inserted into the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 by section 61(3) of the bill. I thank the committee for its diligent scrutiny of the bill, and amendment 164 will correct that cross-reference.
Amendments 181 and 182 are also minor amendments. They will remove definitions that otherwise would be inserted by the bill into the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005.
Amendment 320, in Jamie Greene’s name, seeks to place a duty on road works authorities, and the Scottish road works commissioner, to set aside 5 per cent of the money raised by issuing penalties for road works offences and ring fence it for roads maintenance purposes. Although that may seem like a sensible way to contribute to better maintained roads, in practice it would not achieve that purpose.
The income received from issuing fixed penalties in Scotland is relatively limited. For example, Aberdeenshire Council reported receiving £2,600 in income from fixed-penalty notices during 2018. The amendment would result in £130 of that being set aside for roads maintenance rather than being spent on the administration of the scheme. At such low levels, almost nothing would be contributed to roads maintenance, but the revenue that was available to meet the costs of the scheme would be reduced, restricting the time that could be dedicated to the enforcement of compliance with road works duties.
Given the historically low levels of income that have been raised by the penalties, I am not persuaded that the administrative burden that would be associated with requiring the commissioner’s penalties to be remitted to ministers and then redistributed to road works authorities would be justified by the scale and nature of the likely benefits. In addition, there is strong evidence to suggest that fixed penalties are successful in improving compliance with road works duties, and I am concerned that giving those penalties a revenue-raising purpose could undermine that success.
The intention behind amendment 325, which is also in the name of Jamie Greene, is to ensure that delays to certain road works of which advance notice is required—specifically, major works and works in traffic-sensitive areas—may be implemented only with the approval of the road works authority and the Scottish road works commissioner.
In my view, what is proposed in amendment 325 is unnecessary. There already exists an established system, which is covered in considerable detail in the nationally applicable code of practice for co-ordination of road works, for dealing with the approval of works that need to start later than indicated by a notice under section 113 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Under that process, undertakers must seek road works authority approval for delayed starts and, where they fail to do so, they may incur a commissioner penalty for failure to co-operate. There is considerable industry buy-in to the framework, the success of which is demonstrated by the fact that no commissioner penalty has been issued on that ground because compliance levels are so high. The framework achieves its objectives without placing an excessive burden on the Scottish road works commissioner in relation to operational matters when his role is otherwise entirely strategic.
I therefore cannot support amendments 320 and 325 and I invite Jamie Greene not to move them. If they are moved, I ask the committee to vote against them. I ask the committee to agree to the amendments in my name in the group.
I move amendment 164.
Jamie Greene
I thank the cabinet secretary for the spirit in which he made his comments on my amendments. I will briefly outline the intentions behind them. Amendment 320, as he said, seeks to ensure that a minimum of 5 per cent of the revenues that are achieved from fixed-penalty notices that are given for failure to comply with compliance notices are reserved solely for the purpose of improving the repair and maintenance of roads.
I think that we all understand that road surface quality is a big issue not just in Scotland but right across the UK, although it is perhaps more so in Scotland, where we have far more rural roads that are driven on by fewer motorists. Local authorities have had severe pressures on their ability to improve road quality. Rather than simply calling for money to be spent, I perhaps saw this as an opportunity to seek funding for that. If the minister thinks that 5 per cent would not achieve very much, maybe it would have been better to make the figure 95 per cent. Maybe I can propose that at stage 3.
The purpose of the amendment was to raise awareness of the issue. I am not aware of the scale of the funds from fixed-penalty notices. I am pleased that it is low, because that means that, in general, there are high levels of compliance. However, I am still unclear about where the revenue goes. I appreciate that it covers administrative costs, but if there is a surplus, I am not sure in which budget line it lies. I would like to think that it goes towards improving the quality of our roads in Scotland. Perhaps that can be discussed in future. However, given the minister’s comments, I am unlikely to move amendment 320. I think that I have made the point suitably.
Amendment 325 is on a different issue. I have had a lot of communication and dealt with a lot of casework on road works. I think that we all suffer from the bane of road works in our respective areas. Amendment 325 is concerned with situations where major road works are delayed, although I appreciate that it talks only about the process by which they go through approval for delay.
Proposed new section 113A(2)(b) of the 1991 act talks about delay to the start of works. In fairness to my team, I note that there should probably have been a paragraph (c) that talked about delay to the completion of works. Delay to the start is less of an issue. There is an issue when there is a large or unannounced delay to the completion of road works. There are many instances where we think that a road will be closed for four weeks but, for whatever reason, the contractor or the undertakers decide that it will take much longer, causing huge inconvenience. It is not clear to the public what process they use to get permission to delay the completion. Unless it is for public safety, if the reason for the delay is deemed inappropriate—for example, a cost-saving benefit or because they are underresourced or underfinanced to complete the work—I would like the road works authority or commissioner to say that they must get the work completed within the original timescale.
I appreciate that there is a code of practice around that matter. I will go away from this committee session and look at it and see how strong it is. However, it is an issue that undertakers elongate works. That is what amendment 325 sought to address, although it might have been poorly drafted. We have had a lot of amendments to work on.
I hope that the cabinet secretary and the bill team will take on board the concerns that have been raised through my amendments.
Stewart Stevenson
I have a couple of brief comments. On amendment 320, I reiterate my previous opposition to hypothecation of penalties and fines to particular purposes. They should go to the consolidated fund, which should provide funding to purposes that serve the public good, independent of the origins of the money. If we create a body that depends on penalties and fines, it creates a perverse incentive to collect them. Furthermore, success in raising money through penalties and fines causes a reduction in the income of the original body.
On amendment 325, I do not know what “undertaker” means. I think that it means statutory undertaker. Even there, there are difficulties, because not all the people who do road works are undertakers. An example of something that is not done by a statutory undertaker is the provision of district heating pipes, because district heating is not covered by statutory undertaker provision. In drafting terms, as it currently stands, amendment 325 is not supportable.
Amendment 164 agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
Section 62—Fixed penalty notices
Amendment 320 not moved.
Section 62 agreed to.
After section 62
Amendment 165 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Sections 63 and 64 agreed to.
Section 65—Qualifications of supervisors and operatives
Amendment 166 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 65, as amended, agreed to.
Section 66—Commencement and completion notices
Amendment 325 not moved.
Section 66 agreed to.
Sections 67 and 68 agreed to.
Before section 69
The Convener
The next group is on regional transport partnerships: membership and finance. Amendment 255, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendment 167.
11:00Jeremy Balfour
The role of regional transport partnerships is to strengthen the planning and delivery of regional transport developments so that they better serve the needs of people and businesses. In order to ensure that a regional transport strategy is fully accessible and inclusive, it is important to have the insight and expertise of disabled people who fully understand the lived experience of disability.
Amendment 255 would lay down in statute a requirement for the membership of regional transport partnerships to include a minimum of two disabled people—which I hope is already happening as good practice.
I move amendment 255.
Michael Matheson
I understand the aim of amendment 255 and thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging it. However, the duty that it seeks to impose would present a significant practical challenge for RTPs. In addition, through the national transport strategy review, work on a refreshed governance model for transport at a regional level is under way. That has the potential to refresh and update regional transport governance, so now is not the right time for the amendment.
From a practical perspective, I am not persuaded that imposing a duty on the Scottish ministers and RTPs to meet a quota of members with a disability is likely to be an effective way of ensuring that the interests and concerns of disabled people are represented. As committee members might be aware, other work is under way, as part of the review of our new national transport strategy. That will consult on ways to improve transport governance, as a result of which further legislative change may be required.
However, I agree that it is necessary for the needs and views of disabled people to be represented in decision making on transport. That is why, in delivering Scotland’s accessible travel framework, we have the accessible travel steering group, on which RTPs are represented alongside disabled groups and individuals. The work of the strategic group is closely aligned to that of the 15 public appointees who make up the mobility and access committee, half of whom are disabled people. Such governance design enables the full spectrum of disabilities to be considered in delivering improvements.
Engagement and participation is one of the key themes that was identified in the framework, with a focus on co-production of transport policies and practices, and sharing and learning from the experiences of disabled people. In my view, the actions that are being undertaken under the plan are a more effective means of securing the involvement of disabled people in transport planning and governance.
For those reasons, my view is that amendment 255 is not necessary or appropriate. However, I would be happy to ask my officials to engage with Mr Balfour and relevant stakeholders with a view to explaining in more detail the additional steps that we are already taking to support the framework and secure the delivery of the actions and improvements that it identifies.
I therefore ask Mr Balfour not to press amendment 255. If he does so, I ask the committee not to agree to it.
The bill as introduced makes changes to the way in which RTPs are financed, which will, among other things, permit RTPs to carry forward a surplus or a deficit. Amendment 167, which is in my name, is a technical provision that seeks to ensure that any deficit that is carried forward forms part of the expenses of an RTP for the year following that in which it was incurred. That would require partnerships to take any deficit into account when setting an annual budget and ensure that a carried-over deficit forms part of the expenses that require to be met by constituent councils. The local authority members of the RTP would be able to exert control to require the RTP to utilise those reserve funds to meet the deficit when it was considered appropriate to do so. The amendment puts in place a necessary additional safeguard against the possibility of RTPs building up significant deficits.
I invite the committee to agree to amendment 167.
Jeremy Balfour
I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but I think that we can all agree that the RTPs have a very important role to play. The disability community has been waiting for a long time to see better representation. It would be fair to say that, of all those with protected characteristics, disabled people feel left behind in that regard. As a country, we have taken legal steps to promote other characteristics positively, and I feel that that should now happen in relation to disability. I still think that at least two disabled people who have lived experience and can bring their expertise to it should form part of an RTP. I press amendment 255.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 255 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 255 disagreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 326, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is grouped with amendment 327.
Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
I thank the committee for allowing me to speak to the amendments.
Amendment 326 would ensure that community benefit is taken into account by health boards or health and social care partnerships in tendering for non-emergency patient transport contracts. The definition that is used for “community benefit” comes from the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. The amendment states:
“Before entering into a contract for the provision of non-emergency patient transport services, each health board (or, as the case may be, health and social care partnership) must have regard to the extent to which the contract will improve the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of the board’s area”.
Community transport operators are well placed to help people in hospital return scenarios, for example. Indeed, the chief executive of the British Red Cross said in the 2018 report “In and out of hospital” that home assessments that are carried out by transport operators as patients return home can reduce readmission rates. Checking that patients take their medication and that the heating is on, and ensuring that there is food in the house will help patients to feel more comfortable and allow them to continue their recovery. Those are all tasks that community transport operators already carry out with their passengers, and they will bring community benefit to the area in better outcomes for patients and saving health boards money as a result of fewer readmissions.
I would like to provide a little bit more background information on amendment 326. Cuts to bus services do not affect only rural communities, in which older people often struggle to get to their local hospital; they affect people in urban areas, too. A recent Community Transport Association survey found that almost a quarter of people aged 65 and over felt that
“there was no form of public transport which would get them or a loved one to their hospital appointments on time.”
That also contributes to missed appointments. I refer to my constituency as an example. In the Borders, such missed appointments cost £1 million in 2016, and £15 million has been spent on taxis over the past three years. That proves that demand for patient transport services is outstripping demand.
Amendment 327 would compel health boards to work with community transport operators. Both amendments in the group are entirely reasonable. With them, a duty would be placed on the health boards or the health and social care partnerships, as the case may be. Amendment 327 would require each board or partnership to work with community transport bodies in the provision of non-emergency patient transport services. It would also place a duty on boards or partnerships to report on how they have complied with the duty. That would provide significant opportunities for the local area, and existing services could be incorporated.
The definition of “community transport services” links to the definition of “community bus services” in the Transport Act 1985, but with modifications for services provided that are not necessarily provided by buses.
The amendments seek to ensure that we have more appropriate community transport that delivers for passengers, tackles the issues that are faced in rural areas and takes into consideration community benefit, in order to deliver better outcomes for passengers, integration joint boards and the local national health service boards.
I urge the committee to support my amendments, and I move amendment 326.
Colin Smyth
Amendments 326 and 327, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, look to strengthen the relationship between health boards and community transport. I very much welcome that.
In recent years, we have seen the Government’s role in supporting community transport being eroded. The previous Labour-Lib Dem Scottish Executive provided direct support to community transport through the rural community transport initiative, which has, obviously, been discontinued, and the funds that were previously ring fenced at local government level are no longer ring fenced. That has meant that the support from local councils to community transport is being reduced in a time of major cuts to council budgets.
At the moment, Government support for community transport consists mainly of a pretty small level of funding for the Community Transport Association. Community transport plays a wider role and should be encouraged to do so. Certainly in my area, it is heavily involved in patient transport, but it does not get funding from the health board or health and social care partnership. That sort of situation often makes the service unviable. I have seen that recently in my area, where Annandale Community Transport Services is about to fold because of a lack of funding. That will actually increase costs on the local NHS, which could have to pick up the cost of the patient transport that will be lost as a result of that initiative folding.
I welcome amendments 326 and 327, because they focus our minds on the important role of community transport and the partnership that should be developed with the NHS. The bill is an opportunity to enhance and support that partnership, so I support the amendments.
Stewart Stevenson
I have a number of technical issues with amendments 326 and 327. The main issue, which applies to both amendments, is that they do not seem to cover travel between health board areas. For example, people in Forres, which is at the extreme west side of NHS Grampian’s area, might go to Inverness rather than Aberdeen if the nearest hospital, which is Dr Gray’s, cannot provide the care. Therefore, when amendment 326 refers to
“the wellbeing of the board’s area”,
that is too restrictive. Similarly, amendment 327 refers to “its area”.
John Finnie
Does the member not accept that there are arrangements between boards that would deal with that?
Stewart Stevenson
Mr Finnie is of course correct, which is precisely why people in Forres might go to Inverness. I am looking at the narrow issue that the proposed duty on boards is too restrictive if we want to achieve the public policy that is sought.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I have a wee issue with proposed new subsection (3)(b)(ii) in amendment 327, which refers to services being “cost effective”. Given the broader benefits that are described in amendment 326, which refers to
“economic, social or environmental wellbeing”,
I would not wish to deny health boards the opportunity to use community transport bodies even if, in an individual instance, it might be more expensive to do so. There is a bit of work to do on drafting.
I strongly support community partnership. In my constituency, three community partnerships operate, and I wish to support them strongly. However, I am not entirely clear that the amendments are as good a way of doing that as might be possible.
John Finnie
I support the amendments, which are about economy of effort and people working together. As others have said, no one dissents from the view that a lot of tremendous work takes place. The amendments would perhaps put that work on a firmer footing. I hope that any specific issues about wording will not dissuade members from supporting them. The principle is that our communities want that level of engagement between the two types of bodies.
Mike Rumbles
I congratulate Rachael Hamilton on lodging amendments 326 and 327, which are important. It is important to make those changes to the bill at stage 2. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will criticise the amendments—that is his duty and right where he thinks that there is a technical problem—but that is the whole point of having the stage 2 and stage 3 process. We should get the amendments into the bill and the member can then work with the cabinet secretary before stage 3 to address the issues that I am sure he is about to raise.
Jamie Greene
I concur whole-heartedly with Mr Rumbles. It is just a shame that we have not taken that approach with some of the other amendments. There is always a difficult balance to strike at stage 2 in deciding whether to push something to a vote and try to get it into the bill in the knowledge that there may be technical issues, or to hope to bring it back at stage 3. Members have expressed broad support for the concept that Rachael Hamilton is trying to achieve, and I support it, too. If there are ways in which we can tidy up the amendments, I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the legislation team to do that.
Michael Matheson
The amendments in the group are concerned with duties on health boards and I am conscious that the committee has not given consideration to the idea of conferring additional powers on health boards under the bill.
Amendment 326 would place a duty on health boards that are seeking to enter into a contract for the provision of non-emergency patient transport services to
“consider the extent to which the contract”
would, in addition to its main purpose,
“improve the economic, social or environmental wellbeing”
in their area. Although the amendment does not expressly state how that would be demonstrated, it is possible that health boards would have to consider producing a report or assessment outlining what they had done, which may be difficult for them to do.
11:15I am aware of the importance of ensuring that transport provision—both public transport and community transport—dovetails with healthcare services to ensure that patients can travel to appointments without hindrance. Arrangements will be made in different ways across the country every day. Amendment 326 seems to assume that that is done by—
Rachael Hamilton
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Michael Matheson
No. I want to finish what I have got to say before dealing with any other points, given the time.
The Convener
Rachael Hamilton will have a chance to sum up at the end, so she may be able to make her point then.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 326 seems to assume that arrangements are made by way of formal contracts in a uniform manner, yet there will be a wide variation in provision. For patients with an explicit clinical need, direct support will be available from the Scottish Ambulance Service patient transport service. If the criteria are not met, patients without means of transport will be signposted to existing local voluntary and charitable organisations that provide such a service. A taxi might be the only means of transportation, in which case it may be possible for the patient to reclaim the cost of the taxi. Given those variations in approach, the amendment seems to be misguided in its approach to the issue.
Also, it is unclear how any contracts that health boards might have in place on the narrow issue of patient transport could be demonstrated to improve such broad outcomes as
“economic, social or environmental wellbeing”
across a geographical area. Those additional considerations would constrain health boards’ ability to focus the arrangements on the effective and efficient provision of patient transport. Therefore, it may become an onerous and bureaucratic undertaking for health boards, with questions arising on how it actually helps provision on the ground.
On amendment 327, I acknowledge the important role that community transport bodies might have in the provision of transport to hospitals and other healthcare premises. We know that health boards can, and do, engage with community transport providers on a regular basis. However, placing a statutory duty on health boards to work with those providers in the provision of non-emergency patient transport services raises a number of significant issues.
First, it runs counter to the whole ethos of the Scottish Government’s approach of not micromanaging health boards and allowing them discretion when it comes to the operational delivery of services in their area.
Secondly, community transport services may be provided under contracts. To the extent that the intention, or indeed the practical effect, of the amendment could be to confer an advantage on community transport providers in any process for awarding such contracts, it may give rise to a breach of procurement rules.
Finally, the amendment would oblige health boards to publish a report every year on how effective non-emergency patient transport services in their area have been, including some financial assessment of cost effectiveness and a statement of any further actions that the board plans to take on such services.
Again, a binding national duty to undertake specific actions in such an area could create undue administrative burdens on health boards. Some actions, such as an assessment of cost effectiveness, could be challenging to demonstrate. Indeed, the amendment does not define cost effectiveness, so in its current form, it could lead to ambiguity. Additionally, it is not clear that publishing a report on such matters would actually benefit the transport that patients are seeking to be provided with.
For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 326 and 327. However, I sympathise with Rachael Hamilton’s sentiment here. The issue has been raised consistently through our engagement as we shape the national transport strategy. It also straddles ministerial portfolios and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has an interest in it. Therefore, I would be happy for the Government to engage with Rachael Hamilton prior to stage 3 to consider the matter in further detail in order to explore whether there are further measures that could be taken.
Therefore, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to press amendment 326 or to move amendment 327. If they are pressed or moved, I urge the committee to vote against them.
The Convener
I ask Rachael Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 326.
Rachael Hamilton
I just want to make the point that transport does not currently dovetail. This week, I was at a round-table session specifically to discuss social isolation and loneliness in my constituency. There were community transport providers around the table, one of whom gave an example of a transport provider and a community transport service running in parallel, picking up people who were practically neighbours and who were going to appointments at almost the same time.
The current system is not working and it is not providing economic benefit. I do not think that the national health service will gripe about saving money; it needs to look at saving money, but we also need to consider the overall community benefits. It is all about providing a patient-centred service, which the current service is not.
I have received support today from members of the committee, so I may press both my amendments. I hope that I can take up the cabinet secretary’s offer to work together, even though I have had support today, if these amendments are successful.
The Convener
Are you pressing your amendment?
Rachael Hamilton
Actually, I think that I may not press.
The Convener
You must make a decision, Rachael—it is either press or withdraw.
Rachael Hamilton
I seek to withdraw my amendment.
The Convener
Rachael Hamilton wishes to withdraw amendment 326. Does any member of the committee object?
Mike Rumbles
I object.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 326 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
I have always made it clear that, as convener, when I have the casting vote on a division I will vote in the same way that I did at the outset.
Amendment 326 agreed to.
Amendment 327 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 327 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Again, I will use my casting vote in the same way.
Amendment 327 agreed to.
Section 69—Regional Transport Partnerships: finance
Amendment 167 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 69, as amended, agreed to.
After section 69
The Convener
The next group is on the accessible transport framework. Amendment 256, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.
Jeremy Balfour
“Going Further: Scotland’s Accessible Travel Framework” was published in September 2016. The purpose of the framework is to support disabled people’s rights by removing barriers, improving access to travel and ensuring that disabled people are fully involved in work to improve all aspects of travel. The framework provides a national vision and outcome for accessible travel, and was developed by a steering group that included organisations of and for disabled people, transport service providers, local government and Transport Scotland.
Amendment 256 would require ministers to report annually on what action has been taken to promote the framework and the outcomes that are detailed in it. The advantage of that would be that once a minister reports, this committee, or the Parliament itself, could at least evaluate whether progress was being made and, if not, what should be done to make things move more quickly.
I move amendment 256.
The Convener
No other member has indicated that they wish to speak, so I call the cabinet secretary.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 256, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, seeks to impose a duty on named public authorities to “have regard to” the document “Going Further: Scotland’s Accessible Travel Framework” in carrying out their functions. The amendment would also require the Scottish ministers to report annually on the steps that they had taken to promote the framework, and to ensure that the framework was modified within five years of the date on which the bill received royal assent, or within five years of the date when it was last modified.
I begin by agreeing strongly on the importance of making travel accessible for everyone. The Scottish ministers have made clear their expectation that Scotland’s transport providers will continually improve their performance in order to help disabled people to make better journeys. The Government is taking a series of actions to help to make that happen, one of which is the work that we have done with disabled people’s organisations, transport providers, RTPs and local government to co-produce the accessible travel framework. The framework sets out a national vision and outcomes for accessible travel, and it highlights a range of specific actions to be taken with a view to achieving those outcomes.
Although amendment 256 is intended to bring additional impetus to development of the framework and implementation of the actions that it highlights, I do not consider that it would, in practice, achieve those ends. Public authorities and transport operators are already bound by various statutory equality duties relating to accessibility of public transport vehicles, the transport services that are provided and the exercise of relevant public functions. The accessible travel framework is not a statutory creation and is not intended to be something that has binding legal force; rather, it is intended to be the means through which disabled people and those who are involved in providing public transport across Scotland can work together in a more collaborative, flexible and responsive way to improve accessibility in all aspects of travel.
It is not at all clear that imposing an additional statutory duty that would require public authorities to “have regard to” the framework would, in reality, give the framework any greater status, or secure any increase in the pace of its development and implementation. That is especially so because amendment 256 does not provide any means by which compliance with the duty would be demonstrated, measured or enforced.
I recognise that, although some improvements have already been made as a result of the accessible travel framework, there is much still to do. I confirm that we are already working with stakeholders to increase the pace at which we implement the actions that are identified in the framework by moving to an annual delivery plan for this and future financial years, by agreeing realistic deliverables, by maximising delivery and by reducing inefficiencies. It should be stressed that, as the framework was, the annual delivery plans will be co-produced with disabled people. It will also be possible to monitor and measure progress against the plans effectively. In my view, that is a much more appropriate approach to progressing the framework than imposing the additional general duties that are proposed in amendment 256.
There are also a number of technical issues with amendment 256 that mean that its legal effect is unclear. For example, it is not clear which part of the framework authorities would be obliged to have regard to. Would it be the vision, the outcomes or the action plan? Therefore, it is unclear what failure to comply with the duties would mean in relation to penalties.
For all those reasons, my view is that amendment 256 is not necessary or appropriate. However, I am happy to ask my officials to hold discussions with Mr Balfour and relevant stakeholders to explain in more detail the additional steps that we are taking to support the framework and to secure delivery of the actions that it sets out. Therefore, I ask Mr Balfour not to press amendment 256. I ask the committee to reject it, if it is pressed.
The Convener
I ask Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 256.
Jeremy Balfour
I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has said, but there is a fear in some parts of the third sector that, over time, the accessible travel framework will gather dust, with no practical changes being made.
The main point for me, on which I disagree with the cabinet secretary, is that the advantage of amendment 256 is that it would require the Scottish ministers to lay an annual report before Parliament, and Parliament would be able to question the cabinet secretary on the report, if it so wanted.
11:30Michael Matheson
On the concern about reports gathering dust, “Scotland’s Accessible Travel Framework—Delivery Plan for 2019-2020” was published yesterday. It sets out the actions that will be taken this year, and it dovetails with the annual report that is laid before Parliament by the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland.
Jeremy Balfour
I appreciate that, but I am trying to future proof the approach, in case future Administrations are not as proactive as you and your officials.
The key point is that my proposed approach would allow Parliament to be involved so that there would be scrutiny by MSPs. For that reason, I press amendment 256.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 256 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 256 disagreed to.
Section 70 agreed to.
After section 70
The Convener
The next group is on accessibility of traffic lights. Amendment 257, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.
Jeremy Balfour
Members will be glad to hear that this is the last of my amendments.
I give credit to my two daughters, who brought the issue to my attention about nine months ago, when we were crossing the road. They had put their fingers under the button on the pedestrian crossing control box at the traffic lights. I thought that they were being their usual annoying selves and told them to take their hands away, to stop them getting dirty, but they said, “No—there’s a thing that goes round when the green man appears.” I suspect that many of us are unaware that there is such a thing. I did not know about it. There is a small and unassuming plastic or metal cone on the underside of a pedestrian crossing control box. When the light goes green, it starts to turn round. That means that someone who has a visual impairment or is completely blind is able to cross the road by themselves without assistance. The device is there for people who cannot see the lights: when they feel it rotate, they can cross the road.
Amendment 257 would place a duty on traffic authorities to ensure that new traffic lights have that feature for people with visual impairments.
John Mason
At some modern pedestrian crossings, the light is not across the road, but beside where people stand. Does that partly solve the problem, or is the feature that you are talking about still needed?
Jeremy Balfour
For people who are completely blind, the position of the light does not solve the problem. There can be a light on the control box as well as the device that I am talking about.
Amendment 257 would require traffic authorities to report annually to ministers, and it provides that a summary be laid before Parliament. That is because there is a danger that such devices will be installed but not maintained. It is ironic that the device on the traffic lights that people use to cross to the headquarters of the Royal National Institute of Blind People in Scotland has been broken for the past 12 months. Although I have written to the City of Edinburgh Council on one or two occasions to ask for it to be fixed, as far as I am aware it has not been mended.
John Finnie
A common feature of bills that this committee and others consider is that they seek to provide for reports to Parliament to be produced annually or at some other specified frequency. Is there a concern that producing such reports just becomes an administrative process and the reports gather dust? I am absolutely with Jeremy Balfour on the need to have properly functioning and completely accessible infrastructure, but it seems that amendment 257 would place an onerous administrative burden on bodies, of the sort that I thought his party was against.
Jeremy Balfour
No new reports will be coming to Parliament as a result of amendments that I lodged, because my amendments have all been disagreed to, so far. I accept John Finnie’s point, but there has to be a way for the third sector, in particular, to influence what is going on. If a report is laid before Parliament, the third sector can ask MSPs to ask questions about it, and MSPs have a duty to do so.
If that does not happen, the danger is that we will put in accessible traffic lights, but they will not be maintained properly by local authorities. I am against extra work that takes away from day-to-day provision, but accountability is needed, for which amendment 257 would provide. Rather than people with visual impairments having to wait, it would allow them—
Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Will Jeremy Balfour give way?
Jeremy Balfour
Absolutely.
Maureen Watt
My understanding is that almost all traffic lights have an audio alert, as well as a visual alert. It is sometimes turned off, but it can be turned back on underneath the bit that we press. Do most traffic lights have an audio alert that helps people with visual impairments?
Jeremy Balfour
They do have an audio alert, but on busy streets such as some in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and other cities, it is difficult to hear. A number of people have said to me that on busy days when there is lots of traffic on the road, they cannot hear it.
For people with a visual impairment, the device that I described is what they think makes them best able to go out and cross roads. The technology exists and is available. We are simply asking for it to be implemented, which would be good practice for disabled people.
I move amendment 257.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 257, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, seeks to impose a duty on traffic authorities to ensure that new traffic lights that are erected in their area are accessible for persons with disabilities. It would also require authorities to provide annual reports to the Scottish ministers setting out what they have done to comply with that duty, and what steps they have taken to make existing crossings accessible. The Scottish ministers would be obliged to lay a summary of those reports before the Scottish Parliament each year.
Although I completely agree with the principle of having pedestrian crossings that are accessible and straightforward for everyone to use, I do not consider that amendment 257 is necessary or appropriate.
Traffic authorities are given powers to provide pedestrian crossings on roads for which they are responsible by provisions in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The 1984 act also provides that the traffic signs that are used to indicate a pedestrian crossing must comply with the specifications that are set out in regulations that are made under that act. The current regulations are the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
In making a decision on the location and type of crossing to be created, traffic authorities are guided by design manuals such as “Local Transport Note 2/95: The Design of Pedestrian Crossings”. That document is currently being reviewed by the Department for Transport, with input from the Scottish ministers and local traffic authorities, and is expected to include updated guidance on accessibility issues, including the rotating cones to which Mr Balfour made reference.
Additional guidance for traffic authorities is provided in “Roads for All: Good Practice Guide for Roads”, which was produced by Transport Scotland. That document also includes advice on the accessibility of pedestrian crossings. Transport Scotland is currently reviewing and updating that guidance document in consultation with relevant stakeholders.
In addition, Transport Scotland chairs the roads for all forum, which meets quarterly and includes representatives from the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, the Guide Dogs For The Blind Association, RNIB, Living Streets, Alzheimer Scotland, the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation Scotland, Disability Equality Scotland and other organisations that represent people with disabilities.
The main function of the forum is to advise Transport Scotland on the interests of disabled people in connection with development of standards for design, construction and maintenance of roads, and for layout and accessibility of public transport infrastructure, including pedestrian crossings. That ensures that the Scottish ministers are well informed on accessibility issues and can update regulations, design manuals and best-practice guides on the matter. I can confirm that members of the forum are involved in the update of the “Roads for All: Good Practice Guide for Roads”, which I mentioned a moment ago.
It should also be noted that, in exercising their functions in connection with pedestrian crossings, traffic authorities are already subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, and to the general public sector equality duty, as set out in the Equality Act 2010. Those duties can be measured and enforced using the machinery that is provided for in the 2010 act. For all those reasons, I consider that amendment 257 is not necessary.
It should also be noted that the reports that would be required by subsection (3) of amendment 257 would place an additional administrative and financial burden on traffic authorities. There has been no consultation of them or other stakeholders about the duties that would be imposed by the amendment. My view is that the existing arrangements can be made to work effectively; therefore, I ask Jeremy Balfour not to press amendment 257. If he does so, I ask the committee to reject it.
Jeremy Balfour
The simple answer is that in some parts of Scotland the system is not working, so I press amendment 257.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 257 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 257 disagreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 321, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 322 to 324.
John Finnie
The amendments in this group are the result of my work with councillors at the City of Edinburgh Council. They seek to alter procedural requirements regarding road and traffic regulation orders. I will speak briefly to each amendment.
Amendment 321 would remove the requirement for local authorities to refer to ministers any objections to an order under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The current process of requiring referral adds considerable time and expense to the provision of active travel infrastructure by our local authorities. Redetermination orders are currently required for the conversion of carriageway to footway or cycleway, footway to cycleway, and so on.
Under current law, even the most minor changes to the extent of footways, such as minor kerb build-outs to help pedestrians to cross a road, should be the subject of a redetermination order. Objections, even if they are to minor changes, require referral to the Scottish ministers. That involves a risk that a public hearing will be called, and, even without a hearing, the consideration process can be lengthy. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many local authorities do not use redetermination orders, but current legislation and the legal advice to local authorities make it quite clear that they are required.
Amendment 321 is intended to speed up the redetermination process by granting local authorities the power to determine objections to a redetermination order. That change has the potential to remove nine to 18 months of delay to a scheme, which is important because the drawn-out nature of the delivery of a scheme is a source of great frustration to many local communities. The current need to refer all objections to the Scottish ministers, regardless of the scale of the project or the number or nature of the objections, also shows a lack of proportionality. The additional time and resource that are required to manage the process for such a road order deters local authorities from pursuing schemes and detracts from their ability to deliver projects in a timely fashion.
Amendment 321 would remove the requirement that any unresolved objections to a redetermination order must be decided on by the Scottish ministers. That would grant local authorities the power to decide on objections to a redetermination order, thus avoiding significant delay and encouraging the delivery of more schemes enabling active travel. The change would enable local authorities to take a more nuanced approach when considering the appropriate response to objections to redetermination orders. The ability to reduce delays to projects would enable local authorities to better deliver on commitments, with the reduced administrative burden enabling resources to be deployed where they are most needed.
Amendment 322 follows on from amendment 321, which deals with the primary legislation, and addresses the secondary legislation. I will keep my comments on it brief. It alters the procedure for dealing with objections to such road orders and removes the requirement to prepare documents and submit them to the Scottish ministers. Currently, those documents provide the basis for ministers’ decisions on whether a public hearing is required. Changing that regulatory procedure, in combination with amendment 321, would result in the removal of the need for any objection to a redetermination order to be submitted to the Scottish ministers for consideration, along with the preparation of the associated paperwork. Amendment 322 is required in combination with amendment 321 to streamline that process. The reasons why that is important and why members should vote for it are the same as those that I have given for agreeing to amendment 321.
11:45Amendment 323 would remove the automatic triggering of a Scottish Government-led public hearing when an objection was received to an alteration to loading provision on the carriageway outwith peak hours. The current legislation is excessively stringent. There is a requirement for a mandatory public hearing with a Scottish Government reporter when there are objections to certain categories of restrictions that can be proposed under traffic regulation orders—notably, a loading ban operating outwith peak times regardless of the length of kerb line that is affected. The final decision for all other comparable traffic regulation changes lies with the local authority, so the current process is inconsistent with that.
Mandatory public hearings can significantly delay the implementation of active travel and other projects, and the resulting drawn-out delivery of schemes, as I have said, presents a source of frustration to communities that are impacted by a scheme. The prospect of needing additional time and resource to manage the TRO process also acts as a deterrent to councils progressing projects that involve the reallocation of road space. It also distracts from the will to deliver projects in a timely fashion. Like the previous amendment, the proposed change to legislation has the potential to remove nine to 18 months of delay in the delivery of projects. The ability to reduce delays in delivering active travel schemes would enable councils to support the Scottish Government in its commitment to delivering a healthier, more active Scotland.
Amendment 324 would increase the duration for which an experimental TRO could be kept in place and would provide a mechanism for converting experimental TROs to permanent orders. Experimental orders exist so that local authorities can test changes to road layouts, to better understand the effects, before making the changes permanent. However, experimental orders can run only for 18 months, which often does not provide sufficient time to assess the impact of the change or complete the legal process to make an order permanent. The 18-month timescale for making a TRO permanent means that that process must begin very shortly after an experimental TRO is put in place, to avoid a gap between the experimental TRO ending and the permanent TRO coming into place.
If a permanent TRO is not in place when the 18-month period expires, local authorities must go through the costly exercise of removing the changes that are implemented under the experimental order, even if those changes are beneficial. Therefore, experimental TROs currently fail to offer sufficient opportunity for local authorities to make informed decisions that are based on a proper analysis of the impact of changes before making more permanent alterations, particularly in relation to more complex or contentious projects for which experiments are often of the most value.
By extending the potential duration of experimental TROs, and by streamlining the process to convert them into permanent TROs, amendment 324 would enable local authorities to use experimental TROs more effectively. In particular, it would help to ensure that the impacts of a scheme were properly understood before any decision to make the order permanent was taken, and it would significantly reduce the risk of schemes that were working effectively having to be removed because a permanent order could not be delivered in time.
Amendment 324 would also allow the Scottish ministers to introduce a specific procedure enabling local authorities to convert an experimental TRO into a permanent TRO. At present, there is no procedure for that, and local authorities must go through the full existing TRO process to make any changes permanent.
I move amendment 321.
Colin Smyth
In recent weeks, we have seen that progress to increase the number of journeys that are made by bicycle is woeful, yet we also see that the current procedure delays projects that promote active travel in a prohibitive way and often for minor reasons. I very much welcome John Finnie’s amendments, which could reduce timescales by up to 18 months in some cases.
It is important that objectors have a fair hearing. However, that needs to be proportionate, and it is clear that the current procedures are not proportionate. We need to see real changes to the promotion of active travel and the projects that support that. John Finnie’s amendments offer practical change that would make a difference, and I am very happy to support them.
Jamie Greene
I will speak very briefly. I thank Mr Finnie for his explanation of his largely technical amendments—it was not entirely obvious from day 1 what they sought to achieve.
I have concerns about the fact that we are amending other pieces of primary and secondary legislation in a major way. Although it might be for the right reasons, as Mr Finnie alluded, we have not had a huge opportunity to debate the consequences of the changes as a committee. The outcome of the changes might be to allow certain things to happen differently from how they currently happen. As is always the case with legislation, however, if we change something, there are consequences.
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention?
Jamie Greene
I will, in a second.
I do not feel that we have had the opportunity to consider fully every potential implication—positive or negative—of making the changes, especially the opportunity to hear from local authorities, which will be most affected by them. We simply have not had the opportunity to hear from them, which is a criticism not of the amendment but of the process that we have gone through.
John Finnie
I understand what Jamie Greene says. Does he accept that the arrangements that the amendments seek to change are out of kilter with other arrangements? I would be the last person to try to frustrate the right of a citizen to object, but there is a weighty administrative process at present, which is frustrating progress on a number of schemes.
Jamie Greene
If John Finnie thinks that the current process is not working and that this is a way to change that, he is entitled to do so. I am keen to be open minded enough to listen to the cabinet secretary, who has a wealth of experience around and behind him. He can tell me whether the current system gives adequate protection to those who object or whether the amendments are necessary.
I also give great credence to the views of legal experts in that respect. Although I will listen to the debate as it progresses, my instinct is not to agree with the proposal that is in front of us unless we can be persuaded by a strong argument as to why it is needed.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 321 and 322 attempt to simplify the order-making process for redetermining the means by which the public right of passage over the road may be exercised. Currently, roads authorities must adhere to the procedure that is set out in the Stopping Up of Roads and Private Accesses and the Redetermination of Public Rights of Passage (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1986. Those regulations include a process for remitting proposals to the Scottish ministers if objections are made to them by members of the public and they are not withdrawn, thereby providing an opportunity for an independent review of the proposals.
Amendment 321 seeks to enable new procedural regulations to be made in respect of redetermination orders, replacing the provision that is made for those orders in the 1986 regulations. No provision is made for the new regulations to require the involvement of the Scottish ministers when objections to a proposed order are received; instead, the amendment provides that an authority would be obliged simply to consider the objections before it could make the order.
Amendment 322 follows on from amendment 321 in that it would amend the 1986 regulations, removing the current process for remittance to the Scottish ministers and requiring instead that the roads authority must consider any objections itself. In practice, that might amount to the roads authority rubber-stamping its own decision, which could, in turn, lead to an increase in judicial review proceedings in respect of the orders.
It should also be noted that the change that is proposed by amendment 322 would also extend to the other orders to which the 1986 regulations apply, including orders permanently stopping up roads and preventing dangerous accesses from public roads to land. It is unclear whether the amendment is intended to have such extensive application. Amendments 321 and 322 would, therefore, remove a significant part of the process that is currently attached to those orders. Any adjustments to that process would require careful consideration of the balance between the needs of road users and the maintenance of a robust and fair procedure for consideration of public objections. I am not persuaded that the amendments strike that balance.
Amendment 323 would amend the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, which set out the procedure that is to be followed by local traffic authorities in making traffic regulation orders. The amendment would remove the obligation on such an authority to hold a hearing when it proposes to make an order that prohibits loading or unloading to which an objection has been made and not withdrawn. The authority would still have the power to hold a hearing before making the order, but it would no longer be obliged to do so. The authority could therefore decide, after considering the objections received, to make the order without any further procedure.
The amendment would mean no effective recourse for local people or businesses that might be adversely affected by such a decision, as the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 appears to prevent any challenge to the validity of orders that are made within the powers that that act confers and in accordance with the relevant procedural arrangements. Before introducing such a proposal, it would be necessary to consider carefully the balance of risk, to ensure that the procedure that attached to orders was fair and proportionate.
Amendment 324 relates to experimental traffic orders. The 1984 act provides for such orders to be made for a period that does not exceed 18 months. Mr Finnie’s amendment would allow local traffic authorities to extend an experimental order for a further 18 months or potentially an indefinite period, as was required to enable the authority to evaluate the benefits and complete the process of making the order permanent.
By their nature, such orders are intended to be temporary. Further, it is already possible to make the effect of experimental orders permanent by promoting a permanent traffic regulation order. The procedural requirements that relate to permanent orders are set out in regulations. I am therefore not persuaded that amendment 324 is necessary.
For all the reasons that I have set out, I do not support the changes that amendments 321 to 324 propose. I have some support for the principle behind John Finnie’s amendments of clarifying and streamlining the procedures for making redetermination orders and experimental traffic orders, but careful consideration must be given to changing legislative procedures that provide people with the right to appeal against a road scheme that they consider would have safety implications for road users or an impact on the local economy.
We have made clear our commitment to reviewing the traffic regulation order process outside the bill framework, and a similar approach needs to be followed for the redetermination order process. I will ask my officials to take forward consideration of the issue in the context of the active travel task force delivery plan, which will be published shortly.
I would be happy to work with John Finnie on the TRO process review. I invite him to work with us to get to the core of the issues and to identify solutions that strike the correct balance between road user safety and maintaining a robust and fair process for considering objections. I therefore ask John Finnie not to press amendments 321 to 324 to a vote. If they are pressed, I ask the committee to reject them.
John Finnie
I thank those who participated in the debate, and I particularly thank Colin Smyth for his support. The cabinet secretary said that the amendments are about simplifying processes. Local authorities certainly would be obliged to consider objections. There are different legal views—I accept Mr Greene’s position—but I would not support a rubber-stamping exercise that disenfranchised citizens of their right to appeal. The intention is certainly not to steamroller—that is a good metaphor—orders through. The amendments are about striking a balance and not about preventing challenge.
I am pleased to hear the cabinet secretary’s comments about the requirement to clarify the issues and streamline the process. I am aware—in fact, we are all aware from the committee’s other work—of the on-going work in that regard, and I would be happy to engage with the cabinet secretary on those issues. I will not press amendment 321 to a vote.
12:00Amendment 321, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 322 to 324 not moved.
Before section 71
The Convener
The next group is on corporate offending. Amendment 168, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 168 inserts in the bill a technical provision to deal with cases in which an offence that is created by or under the bill is committed by an organisation such as a company or partnership rather than by an individual. The amendment provides that if an offence, despite it having been committed by an organisation, was committed with the consent of a person in a specified position in the organisation or was attributable to that person’s negligence, both the person and the organisation may be prosecuted for the offence. The people in relevant organisations who may be caught by the provision are those who have some responsibility for the management or control of those organisations. It seeks to prevent individuals who are in positions of responsibility in organisations from hiding behind organisational structures to avoid criminal liability.
I move amendment 168.
Jamie Greene
I will be as brief as possible, given our time constraints this morning, but I want to raise an important issue.
Some of the amendments that we have agreed to on issues such as the workplace parking levy place a duty on companies to meet the obligations therein. Amendment 168 changes the rules. It basically says that it is not the company that is liable, but the individual members of a company. We need to be quite clear where liability falls in that regard.
The table in proposed new subsection (3)(c) sets out what constitutes a relevant organisation and what constitutes an individual. It includes words such as “manager” and “secretary”. However, someone who is a manager of people in an organisation may have no direct corporate responsibility for that organisation. By default, given the way in which the amendment is drafted, the company could be liable and could pass on that liability to an individual who it deems to be appropriately attached to one of the descriptions under the heading “Individual” in the table. Those descriptions of individuals in the corporate structure are very loose and weak.
If the cabinet secretary wants to press the amendment, he will have to tighten up his description of how we make somebody accountable for an organisation. Not every manager, company secretary or officer will have full responsibility for the actions that their company takes. I have a concern that some of the amendments that we—or some members—have agreed to in order to include enforcement provisions in other parts of the Transport (Scotland) Bill will place a legal duty on individuals in organisations to fulfil those requirements, and that any prosecution will relate to those individuals and not to the company concerned. I have concerns about amendment 168 in that respect.
John Finnie
The principle is very well established. Intent would have to be shown for a crime to have been committed. If there is an act or admission that merits such a course, combined with intent, so be it. There is also a preventative element to the provision. I am very supportive of that principle.
Stewart Stevenson
I, too, strongly support the provisions in amendment 168. However, I want to get some clarity on the table that the amendment sets out, which describes an “Individual” in relation to the Companies Act 2006 and, as an alternative, a “Member” where the company’s affairs are managed by its members. I wonder where and by what means such members will be identified.
Mike Rumbles
With the workplace parking levy, we have said that the employer is responsible for the charge. If non-compliance with the levy is an offence, we must hold companies responsible. It is right therefore that we hold responsible the relevant organisation. I thought that, in company law, directors were responsible for what a company does. However, amendment 168 refers to a
“manager, secretary or ... similar officer”.
A manager does not have to be a director of a company. I do not quite understand why the Government has gone down this route, because I thought that directors of companies were responsible for what the company does.
Michael Matheson
By and large, amendment 168 reflects the existing law on corporate offences in Scotland.
Picking up on the specific point, the workplace parking levy is a civil matter, whereas amendment 168 deals with a criminal matter. The required threshold for a prosecution here is significantly higher than for a civil matter—it has got to be beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probability.
Let me give members an example. It could be a criminal offence for a company, in applying for a licence for workplace parking, to put false information in the licence application. It would be exactly the same if someone who owned a pub gave the wrong information on a licence application. That is a criminal offence. If the person who filled in the form gave false information because they were instructed to do so by one of their managers, that manager is the one who commits the criminal offence.
Jamie Greene raised the issue of the potential criminalisation of individuals. Let us keep in mind that any provision involving corporate offending has to be based on an investigation by the police, a report to the procurator fiscal and, potentially, further reports to be commissioned by the procurator fiscal to determine whether an individual or a number of individuals have committed an offence. That is before the offence is even prosecuted. There are a number of checks and balances in our criminal justice system to determine whether somebody can be prosecuted in the first place. Jamie Greene’s concerns and anxieties are dealt with, by and large, by the well-established principles within our criminal justice system.
Amendment 168 agreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 169, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group on its own. Cabinet secretary, I predict that this might be your shortest contribution yet.
Michael Matheson
This may be the most anticipated amendment that the committee has considered in the past few years.
Amendment 169 inserts a technical provision into the bill to deal with the liability of the Crown for offences created by the bill and by any regulations made under the bill. The provisions in and under the bill, including offences, by default bind the Crown. However, as a matter of general policy, acts of the Scottish Parliament do not make the Crown liable for criminal offences. Instead, the liability of the Crown in respect of acts constituting offences is enforced through the civil courts. Accordingly, amendment 169 provides that the Crown may not be held criminally liable under any provision in the bill or regulations made under it.
Alongside that exemption from criminal prosecution, amendment 169 gives the Court of Session a power, on an application by the Lord Advocate, to declare unlawful any act or omission in respect of which the Crown would otherwise be criminally liable. The amendment does not affect the criminal liability of Crown servants, who may be prosecuted for offences created by the bill and regulations under it in the usual way.
I move amendment 169.
John Finnie
The cabinet secretary will be aware of sensitivities around the term “the Crown”; indeed, I lodged a successful amendment in relation to the workplace parking levy that specifically referred to the Crown. By “the Crown”, do you mean individuals? If so, is it appropriate for individuals to have immunity?
Michael Matheson
It refers to organisations. Individuals are still covered by the law.
John Finnie
Can you confirm that every individual is covered?
Michael Matheson
Who would you think that we were seeking to exclude?
John Finnie
Would you exclude the Windsor family, for instance?
Michael Matheson
In relation to the Crown, the provisions in the bill are similar to those in any other bill that has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 169 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 169 agreed to.
Section 71 agreed to.
Schedule
Amendments 170 to 183 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Section 72—Regulations
Amendment 184 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 29 and 252 to 254 not moved.
Amendment 27 moved—[John Finnie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 317 not moved.
Amendment 279 moved—[Peter Chapman]—and agreed to.
Section 72, as amended, agreed to.
Long title
Amendment 280 moved—[Peter Chapman].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 280 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Abstentions
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 280 agreed to.
Long title, as amended, agreed to.
The Convener
That concludes stage 2 consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Thank you, everyone.
12:14 Meeting continued in private until 12:37.26 June 2019
Additional related information from the Scottish Government on the Bill
Revised explanation of the Bill (Revised Explanatory Notes)
More information on how much the Bill is likely to cost (Supplementary Financial Memorandum)
More information on the powers the Scottish Parliament is giving Scottish Ministers to make secondary legislation related to this Bill (Supplementary Delegated Powers Memorandum)
Stage 3 - Final amendments and vote
MSPs can propose further Amendments to the Bill and then vote on each of these. Finally, they vote on whether the Bill should become law.
Debate on the proposed amendments
MSPs get the chance to present their proposed amendments to the Chamber. They vote on whether each amendment should be added to the Bill.
Documents with the amendments considered in the Chamber on 9 October 2019:
- Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 3 (3 October 2019)
- Correction Slip to the Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 3 (7 October 2019)
- Groupings of Amendments for Stage 3 (8 October 2019)
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP Bill 33A—the marshalled list, a corrections slip to the marshalled list, and the groupings of amendments.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of 1 minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Before section 1
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
Group 1 is on the national transport strategy. Amendment 38, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, is grouped with amendments 38A to 38F, 39, 39A, 39B, 40, 40A, 41, 42, 42A, 42B and 132.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
Amendment 38 builds on Colin Smyth’s proposal at stage 2 for the introduction of a set of underpinning transport principles. It requires the Scottish ministers to produce a national transport strategy that sets out their strategic vision for transport in Scotland. In doing so, they must have regard to the contribution that transport can make to a range of important issues, including the realisation of human rights, social and economic wellbeing, the environment, and health and wellbeing. That demonstrates the importance that the Government places on transport as a key enabler in respect of those matters.
Amendments 39 to 42 set out the consultation, publication and reporting requirements in relation to the strategy. Amendment 132 is a consequential amendment to the long title of the bill.
We are consulting on our draft national transport strategy, which will ensure that protecting our climate and improving lives will be at the heart of future strategic transport planning. The Government will ensure that the requirements that are imposed by amendments 38 to 42 are met through finalising the strategy post consultation and reporting to Parliament on the final strategy and the consultation process. I urge members to accept the amendments in my name in the group.
Jamie Greene’s amendments seek to adjust the content, consultation and reporting requirements of the strategy. We envisage that the national transport strategy will guide us over a 20-year period. I do not support setting timescales or cost estimates at the start of a 20-year strategy. In the strategy, we note the need to be flexible, given the lack of future certainty, and actions will be best developed over the lifetime of the strategy through the monitoring and delivery plans. A more appropriate source to determine future costs to Government for strategic transport interventions will be contained in, among other things, the second strategic transport projects review, which will be published during this parliamentary session. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 38B and 38C. For similar reasons, neither can I support amendments 42A and 42B.
On amendment 38A, developing “measurable policy objectives” for a 20-year strategy would not be analytically robust, given the broad range of factors that may impact on the complex and multifaceted issues that are highlighted in amendment 38. The monitoring framework, which the Government has committed to taking forward, will contain measurable indicators that will demonstrate the progress of the strategy and its contribution to those issues. Therefore, I cannot support that amendment.
I am happy to support amendments 38D and 38E, because I consider that the needs of older people and the importance of education are already implicit in references to social and economic wellbeing. The same is true of economic development and growth, but I am concerned that a specific reference to that as a driver of social and economic wellbeing might be too narrow a focus. The Government takes a more holistic approach to inclusive growth and a broader approach to outcomes through the national performance framework, and therefore cannot support amendment 38F.
Amendments 39A and 39B seek to add further consultees, including Parliament. However, amendment 39 already requires ministers to consult widely, including with the general public. That is sufficiently flexible, and there is no need to specify any particular consultees.
On amendment 39A, establishing Parliament as a consultee would be unusual, as Parliament is, of course, not a stakeholder, but exists to hold the Government to account. Moreover, it is not clear how Parliament could be expected to speak with a single voice for the purposes of any consultation. I agree that the Government must seek to take account of the views of members of the Scottish Parliament on the draft strategy—in fact, we have already written to all MSPs for that purpose. I will welcome any views that members might have before the consultation on the strategy closes on 23 October.
I propose to make a statement to Parliament when the strategy is laid, of course. Although I see no need for that to be a statutory requirement, I am willing to support amendment 40A, to reaffirm my commitment in that regard.
I urge members to support all the amendments in my name in the group and to support Jamie Greene’s amendments 38D, 38E and 40A, but to reject his other amendments in the group.
I move amendment 38.
Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
I thank the cabinet secretary. It is good to get off to a good start by supporting some of my amendments, especially as they were lodged quite late in the day. We had to respond fairly quickly after the Government lodged a large number of amendments on the national transport strategy on the Tuesday evening before the midday deadline the next day. We read through the Government’s amendments and they were warmly received by the Conservatives. There is a lot of good stuff in there. In the final hours, we sought to amend what was proposed and tinker with it slightly to see whether we could improve it constructively in any way.
I thank the Government for responding to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s concerns about the lack of a transport strategy in the bill. The bill is a transport bill and, although there will certainly be a lot of political back and forward and discourse today, we have to remember that it is, in effect, a bill of many smaller bills and that its purpose is to make improvements to transport in Scotland. The national transport strategy sits at the heart of that.
For the sake of brevity, I will not speak to all the amendments in the group. However, I would like to speak to the ones that the cabinet secretary has asked members to reject.
Amendment 38A says that it is okay to have a vision. I appreciate that the strategy is a long-term one, but I would like to see in it measurable policy objectives that are linked directly to the outcomes. Yesterday, we talked about the national islands plan and stakeholders’ feedback that it had lots of warm words and aspiration but lacked substance. We have an opportunity to avoid doing exactly the same with the NTS. The Government should introduce measurable policy objectives, and I would like them to be put in the bill. The key word is “measurable”. We and members in future sessions need to be able to look back and see whether the Government has kept to its outcomes. I appreciate that something so wide ranging will potentially span multiple sessions and Governments, but that should not let any future Government get out of having their performance measured and monitored. Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 38A.
I turn to the other amendments in the group, and specifically amendment 38E. I have asked the cabinet secretary to take into account
“access to further and higher education via public transport”
as a key component of the national transport strategy. We commonly get feedback on how important transport is for people to get to their place of education. We took evidence on that in relation to the south of Scotland enterprise agency, and I am sure that my colleague Liz Smith has taken a lot of evidence on it over the years. Good access to decent public transport is vital for young people who are looking to go to college, university or indeed their place of work, and I would like the Government to put that into the bill.
13:45I am pleased that the Government supports my amendments 38D and 38E. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking them, and amendment 40A, on board.
Amendment 38F seeks to add to the transport strategy a requirement on “economic development and growth” in relation to some specific metrics, which I think are commonly used ones. Including that would enable us to consider how we can use transport to boost the economy. Ultimately, what is transport? It is about getting people from A to B—from their home to their place of work or study, and vice versa. I do not see why we should not put that into the strategy. It might end up there, but I would like the requirement to be up front in the bill. Again, the objectives that I have specified are measurable ones so that the Government of the day can be held to account.
I turn to a few of my other, smaller amendments. I hope that my amendments that focus on the elderly and the disabled will be well received. I have had some communication with Age Scotland, which has actively contacted members, and I thank it for its support for the amendments. I hope that the Government will reflect on that support outside this building.
I am pleased that the Government is willing to come back to the Parliament and make a statement on the contents of the strategy. In addition to that, however, I hope that we will give it the place that it deserves, as there is a place for proper debate about the contents of the strategy. I know that the cabinet secretary is always willing to listen to ideas from across the Parliament, and I hope that we will move forward in that positive mood with the rest of the stage 3 consideration of the bill.
I move amendment 38A.
Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
I welcome Michael Matheson’s amendment 38. As he said, it was lodged in response to a stage 2 amendment in my name that aimed to ensure that we set high-level principles for our transport system in legislation. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary’s officials for liaising with me when determining the wording of the amendment.
Transport has a key role to play in realising human rights, improving health, tackling air pollution and climate change, promoting economic growth and equality and supporting social inclusion. I believe that it is right that we are clear about the relationship between our transport system and our society more broadly, and the aims that are set out in subsection (5) in amendment 38 capture that well.
In particular, I draw attention to the inclusion of fair work, which again responds to a stage 2 amendment in my name. We have seen a race to the bottom in areas such as staff terms and conditions in the privatised, fragmented transport system that we have, and that needs to be addressed. Any company or organisation that receives public money should be required to deliver decent terms and conditions for its workers. I hope that we will see a strengthened fair work framework in the future that will properly include collective bargaining and trade union representation as part of the requirements that are placed on those who receive public money to deliver transport services.
Amendment 38 makes it clear that the principles that are set out in the bill should be delivered through the upcoming national transport strategy. That clear statutory underpinning is useful, and I hope that the new national transport strategy and the policy and budgetary decisions that follow will be consistent with the values and aims that are set out in this welcome amendment.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The Scottish Green Party will support amendment 38 and Jamie Greene’s amendments 38D and 38E.
The national transport strategy will be fundamental. We will come on to talk about the workplace parking levy and the role that the strategy will play in that, but the strategy is not being proposed simply for the sake of it. It will inform what is done and enable us to be creative, innovative, inclusive and interconnected, and that is to be welcomed.
I concur with Colin Smyth on the inclusion of fair work. The inclusion of the environment and emission reduction targets in subsection (5)(c) in amendment 38 is also important, as is the inclusion of health and wellbeing in subsection (5)(d). This is not just about words.
We will not support Jamie Greene’s amendments 38A, 38B or 38C. I consider them to be bureaucratic, and we can scrutinise the things that they mention in any case.
I warmly accept the inclusion of elderly persons. Their demographic is growing and that must be reflected in all our deliberations. The inclusion of access to further and higher education via public transport is very important. The committee heard how that can be turned around; Lothian Buses did so in East Lothian. That was about getting young people involved. There are a lot of positives in some of the amendments.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
I will focus on two of Jamie Greene’s amendments.
On amendment 38A, objectives need to be measurable. Yesterday, we saw the publication of the national islands plan. I am critical of that plan because none of its objectives are SMART—specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic and time-bound. They are aspirational in nature.
The Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands (Paul Wheelhouse)
As the member might recall from yesterday’s statement, we are developing an implementation strategy that will have SMART objectives. I hope that he will take satisfaction from that.
Mike Rumbles
Yes, but that will be further down the line and it will not take the same legal approach to the islands plan as was in the bill. The situation with the Transport (Scotland) Bill is reminiscent of that. In the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, we have legislation that requires such objectives to be set and we have found that they are not SMART.
The Government might very well come up with them later on down the line, but an awful lot of work has gone into the national islands plan to produce aspirations. I do not think that we should be producing aspirations. We should be producing specific and measurable objectives, which is why Jamie Greene has lodged amendment 38A and why the Liberal Democrats support it.
I also support amendment 39A, which says that the Scottish Parliament should be a consultee. We already have a good system in which the Scottish Parliament committees can investigate anything that the Government proposes, but would it not be novel to have the Scottish Parliament involved in consulting on the formulation of the national transport strategy? That is an innovative measure that we certainly support.
The Presiding Officer
The cabinet secretary has indicated that he does not wish to wind up. Jamie Greene, please wind up on amendment 38A and indicate whether you wish to press or withdraw it.
Jamie Greene
I have not much to add. I thank Mr Rumbles for his warm words on what I think are fairly constructive amendments. I note the cabinet secretary’s comments and that he has asked members to vote against some of my amendments, but I ask members to reflect on the intent behind them, and on the fact that I hope that they will strengthen the national transport strategy so that we can get it to a good place and the Parliament can be proud of it.
The Presiding Officer
Are you pressing amendment 38A?
Jamie Greene
Yes.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 38A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division. This is the first vote of the day, so I suspend the meeting for five minutes while we call members to the chamber.
13:53 Meeting suspended.13:58 On resuming—
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 38A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 54, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 38A disagreed to.
Amendment 38B moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 38B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 90, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 38B disagreed to.
Amendment 38C moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 38C be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 91, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 38C disagreed to.
Amendments 38D and 38E moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.
Amendment 38F moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 38F be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 38F disagreed to.
Amendment 38, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 39 moved—[Michael Matheson].
Amendment 39A moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 39A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 31, Against 86, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 39A disagreed to.
Amendment 39B moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 39B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 31, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 39B disagreed to.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Amendment 40 moved—[Michael Matheson].
Amendment 40A moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.
Amendment 40, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 41 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 42 moved—[Michael Matheson].
Amendment 42A moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 42A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 31, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 42A disagreed to.
Amendment 42B moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 42B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 91, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 42B disagreed to.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Group 2 is on the purpose of low-emission zones. Amendment 135, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 137, 49, 54 and 55.
Jamie Greene
This is a short group on low-emission zones. It comes back to an issue that we discussed at great length at stages 1 and 2: what is the purpose of a low-emission zone?
At stage 2, there were amendments on this issue. I and the Labour Party presented further detail on what, for the avoidance of doubt, should be in the bill about the purpose of a low-emission zone. In its feedback at stage 2, the Government suggested that what we were proposing was perhaps overly prescriptive, and I accept that. It was perhaps unwise to put into the bill the technical standards and the emissions that low-emission zones should seek to reduce; there are better places to put those stipulations. That said, I still think that is important to push amendment 135 at stage 3, which would put into the bill an overarching message about the purpose of a low-emission zone. The reason for that is the avoidance of doubt among the general public about the purpose of a zone.
Like many others in the chamber, I want low-emission zones to succeed, but they will do so only if the public understand what the purpose and benefits of the zones are and if they have measurable objectives. Amendment 135 clarifies that
“The purpose of a low emission zone ... is to reduce transport-related emissions within and in the vicinity of the zone.”
It is not just the cities that operate a zone that will see a reduction; we also hope to see improvement in areas on the periphery of cities that operate such a zone. I have intentionally taken out any form of prescriptive data on what scientific evidence would define such a reduction. There are other ways that the Government can address that.
Amendment 137 follows on from that and states that the Scottish ministers should set out a report—basically, an updated scientific report—that states what should be included in the emission specification and standards for a low-emission zone. That is my new approach, which has the support of many organisations outside Parliament. Many of us have been speaking to organisations such as Friends of the Earth Scotland, which I thank for their involvement on the issue. I know that they wanted us to push the Government harder to be more specific about what sort of emissions we want to see reduced in Scotland, but I felt that I needed to take some of that out in order to have the best opportunity to have an amendment agreed to at stage 3. I hope that those organisations support the fact that we are debating the matter this afternoon and that the Government will include an overarching objective for low-emission zones.
We will not support amendments 49 and 55, in the name of Colin Smyth. I will let him speak to those and comment later. My understanding is that they introduce an automatic trigger that means that a local authority will have to set up a zone if there is a reduction in air quality, but I do not think that an automatic trigger is the way to do it. Low-emission zones should be set up with the purpose of targeting problematic areas. Automatic triggers will prove onerous to local authorities outside our bigger cities, which do not have the infrastructure to operate such schemes. We know that there can be small zones within local authority areas that have air quality issues; we have often talked about that in Parliament. Colin Smyth’s amendments would require local authorities to set up a low-emission zone to combat such air quality issues, but there are other ways that they could do that. An automatic trigger is not the way to do it, so we will not be able to support Mr Smyth.
I am happy to support amendment 54, in the name of the cabinet secretary.
I move amendment 135.
Colin Smyth
Amendments 49 and 55 will strengthen low-emission zones. When the First Minister declared a climate emergency she said that every policy area must be looked at, but that does not seem to have included the Transport (Scotland) Bill and, in particular, low-emission zones. When taking evidence on the bill, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee was told that LEZs are the one clear measure in the bill that could make a real difference to emissions. However, despite the fact that this year’s programme for government included a commitment to
“consult on Scotland’s ambition to make the transformative shift to zero or ultra-low emission city centres by 2030”,
the bill as it stands does not allow for the creation of ultra-low-emission zones. City centres and other areas with particularly severe air pollution problems will not be able to go any further than those dealing with more moderate air pollution issues.
If the Government is serious about the commitment in the programme for government, local authorities should have the power to introduce targeted ultra-low-emission zones in the parts of their area with the most severe air pollution. Amendment 55 would allow that, subject to ministerial sign-off. That added layer of scrutiny will ensure that the power is not used inappropriately. Failure to agree to the amendment means that the programme for government commitment is an empty promise.
With regard to amendment 49, the recent review of the cleaner air for Scotland strategy described LEZs as
“a necessary and important commitment in delivering cleaner air”,
particularly with regard to air quality management areas, stating that
“AQMAs can and need to be operated more effectively and overall this, with effective LEZ implementation, will lead to necessary further improvements in air quality in the next three to five years”.
Given the clear role for LEZs in air quality management areas, their implementation should not be optional but should be the default position. Amendment 49 would make that the case. However, I have suggested a commonsense provision to give the Scottish ministers the power to waive that requirement, so that if the breach in air pollution was clearly an anomaly or the local authority was able to illustrate how it was otherwise dealing with the issue, it would be exempt.
The two amendments in my name will ensure that the bill reflects the severity and urgency of the climate emergency that we are facing and that the eventual legislation is fit for purpose in the long run and is flexible enough to meet our changing needs.
14:15Amendment 135, in the name of Jamie Greene, introduces a clear statutory purpose for LEZs, and is similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. It implements a unanimous recommendation by all members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in our stage 1 report, and I am happy to support that amendment.
Although LEZs can deliver a wide range of social and environmental benefits, we should be clear that, fundamentally, they must deliver a reduction in transport-related emissions. Placing the provisions of amendment 135 in the bill ensures that LEZs must be developed in line with that aim.
I am also happy to support amendment 54, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which reflects the role that LEZs have to play in helping Scotland to meet its climate change targets.
Transport is Scotland’s biggest emitter and is responsible for more than a third of all our greenhouse gases. Mechanisms such as LEZs should help to deliver national priorities as well as tackling local issues. Let us strengthen them today to ensure that we achieve that.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 135 would set the purpose of a low-emission zone as the reduction of
“transport-related emissions within and in the vicinity of the zone.”
This topic was raised throughout stages 1 and 2. However, the bill already provides a clear mandatory requirement, which is set out in section 9(4): that low-emission zones must help to meet the air quality objectives that are prescribed by the Environment Act 1995. In addition, amendment 54 will add a further mandatory objective for low-emission zones of contributing towards meeting the climate change targets that have been set this year in the Parliament. We will outline the purposes of a low-emission zone and how to set objectives in the forthcoming low-emission zone guidance.
Amendment 135 is therefore not needed. It is unduly narrow in its stated purpose.
Amendment 137 would require the Scottish ministers to prepare and lay a report in the Scottish Parliament no later than five years after the bill has received royal assent outlining any new or existing pollutants that should be considered when setting the emission standards for low-emission zones. Again, that is unnecessarily complex, as these matters are already dealt with by the existing environmental legislation as well as by the bill as it stands.
Amendment 49 would introduce a requirement on local authorities to implement a low-emission zone in any area that does not meet the air pollution limit values as stated in the Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000. The Scottish Government is committed to introducing low-emission zones in other air quality management areas by 2023 where the national low-emission framework appraisals support that. Those appraisals will be conducted this year for all air quality management areas other than in the four main cities, where low-emission zones are already being prepared. As such, we are already taking steps to ensure that low-emission zones are implemented in air quality management areas where the scientific evidence supports such action.
With the First Minister declaring a climate emergency, amendment 54 brings the crucial issues of climate change and air quality together. Low-emission zones will be required to contribute towards meeting the emissions reduction targets that are set out in part 1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Those objectives dovetail with the existing mandatory objective of contributing to an improvement in air quality, as prescribed in section 87(1) of the 1995 act. I therefore encourage local authorities to adopt a pragmatic but ambitious approach to the new climate change objective.
Amendment 55 would introduce a power for local authorities to alter their emission standard for their local low-emission zones, such that they could make emission standards more stringent than the forthcoming national standards contained in regulations. The amendment is unhelpful, as it has the clear potential to cause confusion for people driving between zones. It is unnecessary, as the regulation-making power to set the emission standards as a national standard already allows for the possibility of more stringent standards being set over time.
I therefore ask members to support amendment 54, and I ask Jamie Greene and Colin Smyth not to press amendments 135, 137, 49 and 55. If they are pressed, I urge members to reject them.
John Finnie
The Scottish Greens will not support amendment 135.
We believe that the objective that is mentioned in amendment 54, which is in the name of the cabinet secretary, should be self-evident if everything that we are doing in the bill is intended to achieve the aims of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. However, we want not just to hear words but to see actions.
We will also not support amendment 137. Knowledge is an evolving thing, and we would not be looking for a reference in the bill to pick up on that.
We will support Colin Smyth’s amendments. Amendment 49 is pragmatic and responsive. With regard to amendment 55, there is clearly a place for addressing difference: we are talking about people’s lives. We know that every year tens of thousands of people across the United Kingdom lose their lives because of poor air quality, so there is certainly a place for the ultra-low-emissions standard. It is appropriate that there should be the power to alter that is inherent in Colin Smyth’s amendment 55, so we will support it.
Mike Rumbles
I will comment on three amendments, the first of which is amendment 135, in the name of Jamie Greene. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee discussed the issue and felt that it is important to make the purpose of a low-emission zone explicit.
“The purpose ... is to reduce transport-related emissions within and in the vicinity of the zone.”
That is quite clear, and I do not see what objection anybody could have to it. I must admit that were it not to be set out in the bill, that would make no difference to a zone’s operation, but having the purpose set out in the bill would be helpful. Why members might consider not voting for that, I really do not know.
Liberal Democrats will not support amendments 49 and 55, which are in the name of Colin Smyth. Section 4(3) as proposed in amendment 49 is almost contradictory. It says that where such pollutants happen
“a local authority must—
... make a low emission zone scheme”,
but subsection (4) says that
“The Scottish Ministers may ... exempt a local authority”
from doing so. To me, that is not at all logical and would add to confusion.
Talking of confusion, if Colin Smyth’s amendment 55 were to be agreed to, there would be real confusion across the country. I support the cabinet secretary’s comments in that regard. We want to see LEZs being successful; we do not want to see people driving from one city, in which their vehicle’s emissions level might be perfectly fine, into another LEZ in which it is not and in which they would be breaking the law. Amendment 55 might be well intentioned, but its drafting is completely wrong.
Scottish Liberal Democrats will not support amendments 49 and 55.
The Presiding Officer
I call Jamie Greene to wind up, and to say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 135.
Jamie Greene
I will comment on members’ feedback on the Scottish Conservative amendments. I thank Colin Smyth, of Scottish Labour, and Mike Rumbles, of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, for saying that their parties will support amendment 135, which I appreciate. As they said, it is important that the bill says up front what the purpose of a low-emission zone is.
In his response, the cabinet secretary said that amendment 135’s focus is too narrow. I argue that it is purposely narrow because, by default, the point of such a zone is surely to restrict the entry of vehicles that do not meet emissions criteria. The bill’s intention is to lower emissions in and around the zone in which it operates. By making that clear and defining what the purpose of such zones is, we are more likely to achieve the buy-in of the general public to support them and to be positive about them, as many members are. Other parts of the low-emission zone provisions might refer to other pieces of legislation, so that, if we were to dig deep enough, that might enable us to find out what they are about.
I have no problem with putting the purpose of low-emission zones on the face of the bill—the effect would be to say, in very simple terms and with no ambiguity, what the purpose of LEZs is.
I appeal to the Scottish Greens to work with Scottish Conservatives on that, given the broad range of support by others—not just political support, but support from organisations with which we have been working for a number of months to try to get something in the bill. Members now have a chance to do that, so I appeal to them to do so.
I sympathise with the cabinet secretary’s comments on national standards. It would be very confusing for drivers if different zones were to operate to different technical standards. If a person were to drive from Aberdeen to Dundee and on to Edinburgh in the same vehicle and could enter one LEZ but not another, that would create confusion.
I have other amendments coming up on signage, which would help to inform the public. They will fall nicely together as a package with the amendments that we are debating now. It is a simple proposition: my amendments would enable motorists to understand exactly what they are getting. Unfortunately, in that case, we should not support Colin Smyth’s amendments.
However, it is worth noting that cities—including Edinburgh, which might be the first to introduce an LEZ—are already looking at how they could use the legislation, if it passes as it is currently drafted, to operate different geographical zones, which would allow some vehicles to enter one zone but not another. The legislation has flexibility built in through which to do that; I do not think that differing technical standards is the way to achieve that.
I appeal to members for their support for amendments 135 and 137. I press amendment 135.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 135 disagreed to.
Section 1—Restriction on driving within a zone
The Presiding Officer
Group 3 is on exemptions in low-emission zones. Amendment 136, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 43 and 44.
Jamie Greene
Group 3, which is on low-emission zone exemptions, is a small group. I am happy to support amendments 43 and 44.
As I said earlier, the purpose of a zone is to restrict entry into it. Basically, a motorist will be restricted from entering a zone if their vehicle does not meet the specified emissions standards. However, I think that certain vehicles should be allowed to enter LEZs, if they have to. Amendment 136, which is short and simple, states that vehicles that are being used
“for police purposes ... for ambulance purposes”
or for
“any function of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service or HM Coastguard”,
should be allowed to enter a zone if they require to do so, and should not be subjected to fines and/or penalties. That seems to be common sense. There is not much more to say than that.
I move amendment 136.
Michael Matheson
I am aware that we have heard a lot of views during stages 1 and 2 on proposed low-emission zone exemptions. Let me be very clear: I absolutely accept that there will have to be exemptions from low-emission zones, and they will be captured in secondary legislation.
At stage 1, we stated that the emergency services and blue badge holders are high in our consideration. At stage 2, a number of amendments proposed exemptions in niche areas: in particular, Richard Lyle lodged an amendment that was agreed to relating to transportation equipment for funfairs. That has resulted in an anomaly in the bill, because the committee did not agree to the related substantive amendment.
In order to rectify the situation, I have agreed with Richard Lyle that an exemption from low-emission zones for showmen’s vehicles will be introduced through secondary legislation. Richard Lyle is content with that approach. As such, I have lodged amendment 43, which will remove section 1(1)(c), which introduced a low-emission zone exemption for funfair vehicles.
14:30More generally, in respect of amendments 136 and 44, the topic of national exemptions for LEZs needs careful thought and consideration in conjunction with interested parties that have specialist knowledge. My officials are therefore engaging with key stakeholders on proposed regulations on LEZ exemptions. That will include discussions with the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs, and with the emergency services and associated organisations including the Scottish Ambulance Service and Her Majesty’s Coastguard.
I can, however, provide some clarity for Murdo Fraser and Jamie Greene. The specific issue of an exemption for historic vehicles and the emergency services are among the key topics for consideration in development of regulations; I am strongly minded to include such exemptions. It is worth noting that an exemption for historic vehicles has been granted for the English clean-air zone areas, but emergency services have not been exempted from the London ultra-low-emission zone. However, we need to give careful consideration to those matters before drafting the regulations.
I urge members to support my amendment 43 and to reject amendments 136 and 44.
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Amendment 44 mirrors amendments that I lodged at stage 2 but did not push to a vote, and with which I sought to exempt historic vehicles from the rules on LEZs. I support LEZs. I declare an interest as the owner of an historic vehicle. I know that I am not alone in that in Parliament. As is the case for many historic vehicle owners, mine does no more than a few hundred miles a year, so it can hardly be classed as a major polluter of the atmosphere.
There are more than 250,000 historic vehicle owners and enthusiasts across the United Kingdom. The vehicles include not just cars but motorcycles, buses, coaches, lorries, vans, military vehicles, tractors and steam engines.
The issue is that without an exemption from LEZs, individuals who live within a designated LEZ would not be able to own or operate an historic vehicle, which would be an unreasonable restriction. Moreover, historic vehicles would not be able to drive through LEZs, which would mean that historic vehicle exhibitions, rallies and events could no longer be held in venues in those areas.
Also, people who are getting married and who want to have a historic car—[Interruption.]—or a steam train, as the justice secretary said from a sedentary position—pick them up from their church or their wedding venue would not be able to do that if they were being married within an LEZ. I am sure that that is a tragedy that members would want to avoid at all costs.
There is a strong case to be made for exempting historic vehicles. I do not believe that they are major contributors to pollution; in fact, in total, historic vehicles represent just 0.2 per cent of total traffic on UK roads and, as the cabinet secretary said, they have already been exempted from the LEZs south of the border.
I lodged amendment 44 essentially as a probing amendment. I am very encouraged by the cabinet secretary’s comment that he is “strongly minded” to grant the exemptions in regulations after further discussions with stakeholders. On that basis, I intend not to move amendment 44.
John Finnie
We will not support amendment 136. The organisations that are listed in the amendment should not be granted exemptions. Quite the reverse is true; they should be setting an example. Likewise, Greens will not support Murdo Fraser’s amendment 44, although I do not suppose that that will surprise him.
I was gratified to hear the cabinet secretary’s words about amendment 43 because I know that it caused some surprise when I lent my support to that exemption. I know that Mr Lyle is not with us today—he is elsewhere—but I did not want to have to call the cabinet secretary a spoilsport. The particular historic vehicles to which the amendment relates have been responsible for a lot of community jollification, so I am glad that that point has been picked up. On that basis, we will support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 43.
Jamie Greene
I am surprised that members are not queueing up to tell us about their historic vehicles and steam engines. I think that Murdo Fraser made his points very well and is admirably looking after the huge number of enthusiasts in Scotland. He made some valid points.
I will reflect on the cabinet secretary’s comments. I give him the opportunity to say on the record that he will address seriously the question of emergency vehicles in low-emission zones. The discussion on the issue is on-going, and I do not want us to miss an opportunity. I do not see a problem with putting the measure in the bill, but if he thinks that it would be better in regulations, and we can take him at his word on that, I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 136.
Michael Matheson
As I have stated, we are giving careful consideration to provisions that should be in regulations, and to which services should be included. The matter is better dealt with through regulations, because that will give us greater flexibility to respond to changes in the future. That is the most pragmatic way to deal with the issue. We need to take a careful and considered approach so that we do not create any unintended difficulties as a result of the decisions that we make in relation to regulations.
Jamie Greene
On that basis, I am happy not to press amendment 136.
Amendment 136, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 43 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 44 not moved.
The Presiding Officer
Group 4 is called “Ministerial powers and duties: consultation and publication”. Amendment 45, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 47, 48, 64, 81 to 83, 85, 90, 92, 93, 109, 111, 119 and 120.
Colin Smyth
All 15 amendments in the group are in my name and aim to improve transparency and accountability under the bill.
The bill will give ministers significant powers to introduce secondary legislation in a range of areas. Generally speaking, those powers are necessary for delivering the aims of the bill, and I am not opposed to their inclusion. However, we should be clear that those decisions should be taken following appropriate consultation. Most of the amendments in the group simply seek to put that commonsense responsibility in the bill.
Amendments 64 and 85 apply to ministerial guidance rather than to regulations, but serve a similar purpose. As the bill stands, local authorities will have a duty to “have regard to ... guidance” that is issued by ministers on LEZs and pavement parking. That is fair, because guidance will help to ensure consistency across the country. However, we should be clear that that action should be taken only after consultation: amendments 64 and 85 clarify that.
Amendment 120 would require ministers to publish any code of practice that they introduce as soon as possible. The bill will give ministers the power to introduce or approve a code of practice on safety measures relating to road works, but it does not make it clear that the code of practice should be published, or how it should be published. The amendment would make it clear that the code must be published, which would remove ambiguity from the bill and improve accountability in relation to the guidance that will be produced under part 5.
I move amendment 45.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 45, 47, 48, 81 to 83, 90, 92, 93, 109, and 111 all seek to require the Scottish ministers to consult
“such persons as they consider appropriate”
before making regulations on low-emission zones, parking and workplace parking. Consultation of stakeholders is vital to the success of any secondary legislation, and the process is undertaken as a matter of Scottish Government policy. Therefore, I understand the intention behind the amendments.
Amendments 64 and 85 seek to give the Scottish ministers powers to issue guidance on low-emission zones and parking. Again, that is already standard practice: the Scottish ministers have an inherent power to issue guidance. In relation to parking and low-emission zones, the bill requires local authorities to take any such guidance into account. The Scottish ministers will always consult prior to issuing guidance, and consultation of key stakeholders has been on-going for some time on low-emission zones and parking guidance.
Amendments 119 and 120 would introduce a requirement on the Scottish ministers to consult on any revision or update to the safety code of practice for roads authorities, and to publish that code. Again, the Scottish ministers would, as a matter of routine, consult the industry and roads authorities during preparation of such a code. The existing safety code for undertakers is already published, and the same is intended for any roads authority code.
Although existing measures mean that the intention behind the amendments in the group would be achieved, I have no issue with the requirements being expressed in the bill. I therefore support the amendments.
Colin Smyth
I thank the cabinet secretary for his support for the amendments. They will make small but important changes to protect transparency and accountability, now and in the future, thereby enshrining best practice in law.
Amendment 45 agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
We allowed an hour for the debate on group 4, which is supposed to have finished; we are almost four minutes over time. I used my powers under rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate to continue, so I ask members to note that we are four minutes behind schedule.
Group 5 is technical amendments on low-emission zones. Amendment 46, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 53, 56 and 178.
Michael Matheson
The amendments in this group are designed to help to demarcate the difference between low-emission zone scope and low-emission zone exemptions.
At stage 2, the bill used the terms “vehicle” and “type of vehicle” interchangeably in relation to low-emission zone scope, exemptions, including time-limited exemptions, and grace periods. Unfortunately, that approach might cause confusion.
The amendments in this group seek to address that language issue by ensuring that the bill describes vehicles in terms of, first, their use, secondly, their construction, or, thirdly, a combination of their use and construction, specifically when referring to low-emission zone scope or exemptions. That means that low-emission zone scope and exemptions can be set in a way that accurately describes the vehicles to which the scope of the low-emission zone applies and the vehicles to which the exemptions apply, thereby making clear that low-emission zone scope and low-emission zone exemptions are separate concepts.
The same principle is applied to the creation of grace periods, which are linked to the scope of low-emission zones and, as such, are applicable only to a vehicle’s construction, rather than its use.
I urge members to support amendments 46, 53, 56 and 178.
I move amendment 46.
Amendment 46 agreed to.
Amendment 137 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 47, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 137 disagreed to.
Section 2—Proving contraventions and issue of a penalty charge notice
Amendment 47 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.
Section 3—Enforcement
Amendment 48 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.
14:45The Presiding Officer
Group 6 is on enforcement of low-emission zones. Amendment 138, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 139, 151, 126 and 176.
Colin Smyth
Amendments 138 and 139 relate to the creation, in the bill, of an unclear situation on LEZ enforcement. The bill does not make driving in an LEZ a criminal offence, but it introduces a vague power for ministers to create criminal offences by regulation. I am genuinely concerned about the ambiguity that that creates. If it is the Government’s intention to create a criminal offence, that should surely be in the bill. I would therefore be grateful if the cabinet secretary could clarify the intent behind those enabling powers, and what he envisages them being used for.
Likewise, I am keen to know why a decision was not taken to make driving in an LEZ a criminal offence from the outset.
Amendment 126 calls for regulations setting or changing penalty charges related to LEZs to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and my amendment 176 calls for regulations setting out who might be liable for LEZ charges to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Those are two important details, with significant consequences for drivers, and the decisions made in those regulations must be subject to adequate scrutiny. For that reason, I believe that they should have to be agreed by Parliament, under the affirmative procedure.
I welcome amendment 151 from Jamie Greene, which calls for regulations on traffic signs to be used in LEZs. The need for consistency in signage was a key issue highlighted to the REC Committee throughout the progress of the bill, and there is widespread agreement that that would be key to raising public awareness and encouraging compliance. I am happy to support amendment 151, which would ensure that that is the case.
I move amendment 138.
The Presiding Officer
I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 151 and the other amendments in this group.
Jamie Greene
I will just speak to amendment 151. As was said in the conversation that we had in a previous group on national standards, it is right that we should set a national technical standard for the zones, but it is also really important that we have national signage standards.
Amendment 151 would provide in the bill that ministers will introduce regulations that will ensure that there will not be different traffic signage used in different zones. I lodged the amendment for the reason that Colin Smyth gave—I thank him for his support—which is to ensure that there is consistency across all the zones and that drivers understand the signage and know exactly when they are entering or exiting a zone, and the rules that operate around it. That consistency of message, whether at the side of the road or in road markings, would ensure that no matter which city someone was driving in, they would know exactly when they were in or out of a zone.
Anyone who has driven through London congestion charge areas will know that when the areas were introduced, there was ambiguity about which side of a street was in or out of a zone, and that was an opt-in scheme so people needed to know whether they were going to pay the fee accordingly. The difference here is that people will not know until they get the fine through the post a couple of weeks later.
This is an important, small but useful amendment that will ensure consistency across all low-emission zones as they are introduced across Scotland.
Mike Rumbles
I confirm our support for the amendments on the ground of consistency. I support Colin Smyth’s amendments, particularly amendment 138. I agree that the regulations are not the right place to create offences, because, as we know, regulations can only be approved or removed by Parliament—we cannot amend them. The criminal offence really should have been created in the bill, so we agree with the position that Colin Smyth outlined.
Michael Matheson
This group of amendments addresses the enforcement of low-emission zones.
Amendment 138 seeks to remove the ability of Scottish ministers to create criminal offences for non-payment of the low-emission zone civil penalty charge. Amendment 139 would result in there being no maximum criminal fine for non-payment of low-emission zone penalties. The bill provides for criminal sanctions against non-payment as an important means of ensuring enforcement of the low-emission zone regime. These amendments would undermine the system, as they would remove that enforcement option.
Amendment 151 is unnecessary. The Scottish ministers already have statutory powers to amend the existing Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 to prescribe traffic signs for low-emission zones.
Work to design low-emission zone signs at national level is already being progressed by my officials using the powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Amendments 126 and 176 both seek to make the regulation-making powers under sections 1(4)(c) and 2(4)(b) subject to the affirmative procedure. Although I consider the matter to be somewhat finely balanced, I am content to agree that the powers should be subject to the additional parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded by the affirmative procedure. I therefore support amendments 126 and 176, but I ask that Colin Smyth and Jamie Greene do not press the other amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed, I urge members to reject them.
Colin Smyth
I am a bit disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not really clarify the purpose of the ministerial power to introduce regulations creating criminal offences under this section. I still believe that the approach in the bill creates a degree of ambiguity and confusion, but I do not wish to limit enforcement powers with regard to LEZs by removing that power, so I will seek members’ agreement to withdraw amendment 138 and I will not move amendment 139. However, I wish to move amendments 126 and 176, which would make regulations on penalty charges and liabilities subject to the affirmative procedure, as I believe that that would provide a useful additional layer of scrutiny to two key elements of LEZ enforcement.
Amendment 138, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 139 not moved.
Section 4—Power to make or modify a low emission zone scheme
Amendment 49 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division. As this is the first division following a change of group, it will be a one-minute division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 88, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 49 disagreed to.
Section 5—Ministerial approval
The Presiding Officer
Group 7 is concerned with process issues in low-emission zones. Amendment 140, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 141, 50, 51, 142 to 144, 52 and 63.
Jamie Greene
As amended at stage 2, the bill states that if a scheme is to be created, amended or revoked, ministerial approval is required. My amendments in this group—specifically, amendments 140, 141, 143 and 144—remove the “revoke” element. The reason for that is simple, and concerns something that I raised at stage 2.
It is absolutely fair that Scottish ministers should have a say in the setting up of the zones—they are quite substantial pieces of infrastructure and operations—and it is important that the local authorities that set them up do so following the required due diligence. However, concerns have been raised. If a scheme has been in operation for a number of years and has either met all its objectives or is deemed to be inoperable for any reason, a local authority might choose to close down or revoke a zone and go down a different path in tackling emissions in its area. Indeed, we hope that the zones might be victims of their own success and there will not be a need for them in the future. At the moment, the ability to revoke requires ministerial approval, which means that we could end up with a scenario in which a city such as Dundee or Glasgow would like to cease to operate a zone but is overruled by the Government.
It is important that the local authority that sets up and operates the zone—and is financially responsible for it—should have the right to unilaterally close down the zone, if it deems it appropriate to do so. It is not appropriate for the Government to have the final power to decline the revocation of a zone. The amendments address that.
Another amendment in the group—amendment 142—sets out that there are national rules around the zone. We have talked about signage and national vehicle standards, and the cabinet secretary spoke about regulations around national exemptions. However, the design of the geographic area of a zone, and the days and times of operation, should be left to local authorities. Although it is likely that the zones will be in operation 24/7, that may not be required. There are many reasons—including economic reasons—why a local authority may choose not to operate a zone on a Sunday, for example. I am not saying that a local authority should do that; this is about giving local authorities the flexibility and freedom to design a zone that works for them.
Local authorities need flexibility on where the zone is—in other words, which streets are in it and which are outside it. Edinburgh has been having a proactive conversation and engaging with the public in that regard already.
As I said, the other aspect on which local authorities need flexibility is the dates and times of a zone’s operation. If a local authority chooses that a zone should operate 24/7, so be it. However, that power should not lie centrally or be centrally decided—again, that should be up to those who create the zone. Although I am happy to hear comments on the amendments, I hope that they are seen as a welcome improvement to the process of operating the zones.
I move amendment 140.
The Presiding Officer
I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 50 and the other amendments in the group.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 140, 141, 143 and 144 from Jamie Greene are similar to amendments that were lodged at stage 2. They seek to remove reference to revocation from sections 5, 6 and 7 of the bill. As a result, ministers would have no powers to consider proposals to revoke a low-emission zone, statutory consultees would not be consulted on any such revocation, and Scottish ministers and local authorities would have no powers to call for an examination into a proposal to revoke a low-emission zone. Proposals for low-emission zones, including revocation, should always be subject to the scrutiny of ministers and consultees.
Amendments 50 and 51 fulfil a commitment that was made at stage 2 to consider the amendments that Jamie Greene lodged at stage 2. Amendments 50 and 51 hold ministers and local authorities to account in demonstrating that consultation responses have been considered when such a scheme is made and approved.
Amendment 142 from Jamie Greene would have the same effect as another amendment that he lodged at stage 2, and would remove the requirement for ministers to approve proposals in relation to the area and days and hours of operation of a low-emission zone. Amendment 142 should be rejected, because the days and hours of operation are among the most significant elements of a scheme, and ministers should, therefore, approve proposals in that regard.
Amendment 52 offers a significant reworking of section 7 to allow for procedural flexibility in the examination of low-emission zone scheme proposals. It does not dilute the premise of a local inquiry, but enables an examination to be conducted by an independent reporter by way of written representations, hearings or an inquiry. The new section 7 also gives Scottish ministers a regulation-making power to outline procedural and financial matters in relation to those examinations.
Amendment 63 deals with an anomaly in section 24 that resulted from the committee agreeing to an amendment at stage 2, whereby section 24(1A) allows local authorities to carry out, at their own instance, a review into a low-emission zone, rather than only by direction from Scottish ministers.
I urge members to reject amendments 140 to 144 in Jamie Greene’s name, and to accept amendments 50 to 52 and 63 in my name.
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments. Where there is disagreement or, perhaps, confusion as to the effect of amendments, I am keen to ensure that we do not amend the bill in a way that leads to unintended consequences.
My interpretation of the drafting of my amendments is that they remove Scottish ministers’ ability to overrule a decision by a local authority to revoke. My understanding of the cabinet secretary’s response is that he would like to retain the power to overrule, but I do not think that he has given a sensible argument for why he would like to retain that power.
15:00As I have said, it is important that the local authority concerned goes through due process in coming to an arrangement. However, once it has done that, it should be for the local authority, which is, ultimately, financially responsible for operating the scheme, to take the decision to close it down. We could end up in a scenario in which the Government says no to the revocation of a scheme that has perhaps proven to be financially onerous for the local authority, which may have struggled to meet the zone’s operational costs. The minister could still say that that does not fit in with the national objectives, so the zone will have to be kept. I do not want local authorities to be in that scenario. That was the premise behind my proposal.
Mike Rumbles
We will support Jamie Greene’s amendments. To answer his point—which the minister did not, of course—all ministers want to retain the powers that they have. That is the simple answer to the question why the minister did not agree to what has been proposed. He wants to hold on to the powers that he has. It is very simple.
Jamie Greene
Mr Rumbles has been in this building for a lot longer than I have, and I thank him for his wisdom. I could not agree more.
To be serious, I ask members to support my proposal. We have to strike a balance in the discussion about low-emission zones in respect of what local authorities are given the power to do versus what should be centrally decided. There are elements that should be centrally decided, which we have talked about, but I still think that flexibility is required at the local level. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 140, which I will press.
I thank the cabinet secretary for amendments 50 and 51, which I am happy to support, following my discussions with him and the legislation team. I thank him for being flexible, taking on board our comments at stage 2 and lodging those amendments. I appreciate that, and we are happy to support amendments 50 and 51.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 140 disagreed to.
Amendment 141 not moved.
Amendments 50 and 51 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 142 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 28, Against 90, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 142 disagreed to.
Section 6—Prior consultation
Amendment 143 not moved.
Section 7—Local inquiries
Amendment 144 not moved.
Amendment 52 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Required content of a scheme
Amendments 53 and 54 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
After section 9
Amendment 55 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 88, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 55 disagreed to.
Section 10—Grace period
The Presiding Officer
Group 8 is on grace periods in low-emission zones. Amendment 145, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 146 to 148, 57 to 59, 149 and 150. If amendment 148 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendments 57 and 58.
Jamie Greene
I know that the group looks long and members are dashing off for coffee, but I will not say very much on the group, so they should not go too far.
Members: Shame.
Jamie Greene
I know—it is a shame. [Laughter.] I hope that we will get to a break soon, Presiding Officer. We are making good progress.
When we looked at the proposals in the bill as introduced, we noted that the Government had rightly recognised that there needs to be a grace period. We cannot vote the legislation through and have zones set up the next day, because people would, in effect, be barred from entering the zones. Outside this building, there are people who drive older vehicles and small businesses that have such vehicles. We want to bring them up to the right emission standards to allow those people to drive in our city centres, but we will need some time to do so.
The concept of a grace period is welcome, but throughout stages 2 and 3 we have sought consistently to tinker with the format. When I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, we did not offer the proposals in a table format and the wording was complex to navigate. I hope that the way in which I have presented the proposals in my stage 3 amendments will make it easier to understand them.
In essence, I want to do two things, the first of which is to have three categories of vehicle—buses and coaches; commercial vehicles; and cars, by which I mean everyday household cars—and to give them different grace periods. The second thing is to separate them into the two categories of residents and non-residents. There is a good reason for that. After discussions with many councillors and local authorities, it was clear to me that people who live and operate in a zone and may be captured by it do not have a choice, whereas people who live outside a zone and want to travel into it have more ability to choose to enter it in a certain type of vehicle. If Edinburgh city centre becomes a low-emission zone, someone who lives there and who has the wrong type of vehicle will by default be breaking the law.
We thought that it would be sensible to give people more time, so we propose periods of one, two and three years respectively for those categories in which people are non-residents, and two, three and four years for residents. The range for grace periods would therefore be from one to four years depending on where the vehicle is registered and what type of vehicle it is. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition.
We know that this will be an issue because the indicative proposals from the City of Edinburgh Council show that it has already identified different types of zones that will allow entry to different types of vehicles.
It is sensible for us to do the right thing. We all support the setting up of low-emission zones, but it should be done in a sensible way. A lot of the small businesses that I spoke to are locked into contracts and leases. They cannot get out of those contracts and change their vehicles overnight. The general feedback that I got was that a grace period of three or four years would probably be long enough to allow those businesses to make those spending decisions and change the vehicles that they invest in, be they lease hired, contracted or purchased. That is important feedback.
We do not want to find out that, as a consequence of the legislation, businesses are stuck in vehicle contracts that they cannot get out of in a short period of time, and that they might have onerous charges or penalties to pay as a result.
This is the right thing to do. I am open to hearing members’ feedback on whether they agree with the concept that people who live in a zone should be given a little more time. I will take a view on where we sit after the debate.
I move amendment 145.
Colin Smyth
Amendments 57 to 59 aim to encourage the use of shorter grace periods for low-emission zones, while providing local authorities with the flexibility to make decisions that meet their needs.
As it stands, the bill allows grace periods of up to six years, while forcing a mandatory minimum grace period on local authorities. That does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis that we face in terms of air pollution and climate change, and it does not provide the flexibility that is needed to future proof the legislation.
Six-year grace periods are incompatible with a number of the Government’s aims, such as the review of the cleaner air for Scotland strategy, which states:
“The four first round LEZs need to follow legal and policy timetables and be in place and delivering within four years.”
That will simply not be possible if any local authority chooses to implement six-year grace periods.
Likewise, the Government’s ambitions, from plans to phase out the need for new petrol and diesel cars to the new programme for government aim of zero-emission cities by 2030, will be hindered by the lengthy grace periods in the bill. However, in the interests of flexibility, I have not proposed removing that option entirely. Amendment 59 would simply require ministers to sign off on the use of longer grace periods. That will send a clear message that the maximum grace periods should not be encouraged without removing the option entirely if there was an exceptional reason for such a lengthy period.
Amendments 57 and 58 seek to remove the statutory minimum grace periods to provide flexibility to local authorities and to future proof the bill. While the introduction of an LEZ is a significant change for individuals, and one that requires a fair lead-in period, that will not necessarily always be the case. The legislation needs to be open enough to deal with a range of scenarios now and in the future.
The issue of displacement was raised with the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Providing more flexibility on grace periods would, for example, allow the boundaries of the LEZ to be tweaked slightly without the need for a lengthy two-year delay. That is not to say that it should be common practice to go below the suggested minimums and, realistically, many local authorities are not likely to choose to do that at this point. However, we should trust that common sense will be used in the development of LEZs. Even if local authorities were inclined to use that flexibility inappropriately, ministers will still have sign-off, meaning that an LEZ with unreasonable grace periods would not be allowed, even with these amendments. The amendments are simply about removing something that might act as an unnecessary barrier to a minor change in a boundary at some point down the line.
Amendment 148 and associated amendments seek to replace the range of grace periods with set grace periods, based on vehicle type. Although I prefer the amendments that I have lodged, because they would give local authorities flexibility, Labour will support amendment 148 because it would have the effect of ensuring that LEZs would come into force earlier than the existing provisions in the bill.
John Finnie
We will not support any of the amendments in the group. We are happy with the grace periods. They are clearly an important part of the bill. As in any proposed legislation, transitional arrangements are important. The issue has been addressed and it was the subject of consultation, so we will not support any of the amendments in the group.
Michael Matheson
Grace periods are critical to the operation of low emissions, because they will give all road users time to prepare for the introduction of a low-emission zone. Amendments 145 to 148 seek to place very prescriptive grace periods into the bill. I draw attention to two substantive issues. Amendment 148 does not take account of the full list of vehicle types that are recognised by the Vehicle Certification Agency, which is not acceptable in enforcement terms. The amendments also seek to substantially reduce the maximum grace periods for buses and other commercial vehicles in a way that offers no flexibility for local authorities to set grace periods as they see fit.
15:15Amendment 57 seeks to remove the minimum period for grace periods for non-residents. Removing the minimum would mean that low-emission zones could, in theory, start immediately, which would give those affected no time to adapt to the changes. The grace periods that are currently set out in the bill form the most appropriate and balanced approach, where we can achieve it in the legislation. They are based on extensive engagement with stakeholders, including local authorities.
Amendment 59 would impose a requirement to seek the approval of Scottish ministers around grace periods, which is not necessary because ministers must already approve a low-emission zone scheme under section 5 of the bill.
I have some sympathy with the intent of amendment 58, which seeks to remove minimum grace periods for residents. Local authorities will still have flexibility to set those periods up to two years beyond the grace period that is set for non-residents, so I can support that amendment.
Amendments 149 and 150, which were lodged by Jamie Greene, are concerned with removing section 11 in its entirety. That would, in effect, result in the removal from the bill of substantive necessary grace period provisions, covering situations including those in which two or more local authorities wished to act jointly when making or amending a low-emission zone, or in which newly adopted roads were included in an existing low-emission zone.
Therefore, although I can support amendment 58, I ask Jamie Greene and Colin Smyth not to press their other amendments in the group. If the amendments are pressed, I urge members to reject them.
Jamie Greene
One thing that is still unclear—perhaps the cabinet secretary can clarify it—is whether the power to set grace periods will be defined zone by zone by local authorities, or whether there will be a national minimum or maximum for grace periods. My amendments seek to bring clarity on that point.
Michael Matheson
There is a minimum and a maximum, and also a provision that will allow local authorities to set grace periods that reflect local circumstances.
Jamie Greene
Right—so there would be a national range, but flexibility at a local level. If a local authority’s proposal for a grace period did not meet the national exemption, would it not be able to introduce it? I still think that that is unclear. For example, does the cabinet secretary envisage a situation in which an Edinburgh resident may have one year but a Glasgow resident may have three years? Might we see such an outcome?
Michael Matheson
We covered that point at stage 2. As Jamie Greene is aware, there is a minimum and a maximum. In seeking approval from Scottish ministers, a local authority would have to set out what the grace period would be. If the period exceeded what was set out in the legislation, clearly it would not be approved by ministers, but if a lower period was sought, the local authority would have to explain to ministers the purpose of having a timeframe that was lower than the maximum.
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s response on those points. I will not seek to progress my proposal on the grace period in the structure that was presented in my amendments, but I will add my support to amendment 58, in the name of Colin Smyth, which the Government has indicated that it will support. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 145 and I will not move my other amendments in the group.
Amendment 145, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 56 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendments 146 to 148 and 57 not moved.
Amendment 58 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.
Amendment 59 not moved.
Amendment 149 not moved.
Section 11—Grace periods: further provision
Amendment 150 not moved.
Section 12—Time-limited exemptions
Amendment 178 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
After section 16
Amendment 151 moved—[Jamie Greene].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 54, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 151 disagreed to.
After section 17
The Presiding Officer
For members’ information, we will take a 10-minute break in about 15 minutes’ time, after group 10.
Group 9 is on information sharing. Amendment 60, in the name of Michael Matheson, is grouped with amendment 84.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 60 and 84 enable the sharing of information between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and a “responsible body” such as a local authority or its “enforcement agent” in a way that allows the successful enforcement of LEZs and parking schemes, while complying with data-sharing legislation. The data principally centres around the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle, which is central to the operation of enforcement regimes.
That approach to data sharing will work in instances in which the LEZ and back office parking enforcement regimes are run by the Scottish Government, a group of local authorities or a contractor. Where information is disclosed to an enforcement agent, they can use or further disclose it only
“as is necessary for or in connection with the enforcement”
of the LEZ and parking schemes. I urge members to agree to amendments 60 and 84.
I move amendment 60.
Amendment 60 agreed to.
Section 19—Ministers’ grant-making powers
The Presiding Officer
Group 10 is on financial provisions regarding low-emission zones. Amendment 61, in the name of Michael Matheson, is grouped with amendments 62, 152 and 153.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 61 and 62 make it clear that grants to individual persons, for example, might be subject to conditions, including a repayment. That is necessary to address a situation in which a grant is provided to make alterations to a vehicle to reduce its emissions—such as the retrofit of a vehicle to achieve a Euro 6 diesel standard—but the alterations are subsequently proven not to work in the real world and not to reduce emissions sufficiently.
Amendment 152 is unnecessary. Local authorities are not obliged to accept
“an offer of a grant or a loan”
from the Scottish Government. In practice, we already provide funding to local authorities to help them meet their low-emission zone scheme design and implementation costs. If, due to unforeseen issues, additional funding is needed, my officials will work in a collaborative manner with local authorities to address those funding requests.
Amendment 153 is similar to an amendment that Brian Whittle lodged at stage 2 and that was not agreed. As I did at stage 2, I believe that that approach is too prescriptive. However, the focusing of penalty moneys on issues such as active travel can be delivered if a local authority frames an objective of their low-emission zone scheme around such an issue. That point will be made clear in low-emission zone guidance.
In moving amendment 61, I ask members to support amendment 62 and to reject the other amendments in the group.
I move amendment 61.
The Presiding Officer
I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 152 and the other amendments in the group.
Jamie Greene
First, I accept the cabinet secretary’s comments that amendment 152 is unnecessary. If he is confident that local authorities have the right of refusal, I am happy not to move it.
However, I will speak to amendments 61 and 62, in the name of the cabinet secretary, on a technical matter that comes from a discussion that we had at stage 2. At that point, by ensuring that the local authorities and ministers would mutually agree the conditions of the terms of such a grant, we strengthened the bill. That wording is in section 19(2) and it is helpful to see it in the bill. However, with amendment 61, the cabinet secretary seeks to roll back on that agreement, by saying that the conditions for repayment will be only
“as the Scottish Ministers determine”.
At stage 2, I sought to ensure that local authorities had some involvement in setting the conditions of repayment, that they would not be subject purely to the conditions laid on them and that it would be a mutual decision. For that reason, I cannot support amendments 61 or 62.
The Presiding Officer
I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 153 and the other amendments in the group.
Brian Whittle (South Scotland) (Con)
Amendment 153 looks at surplus moneys that arise from penalty charges within an LEZ. In developing low-emission zones, the Transport (Scotland) Bill reduces options for travel within an LEZ. Amendment 153 ensures that investment in green, alternative modes of transport, such as “active travel”, “public transport infrastructure” and “park and ride facilities”, is intrinsic to the penalty charge. If we remove transport options, it is important that we encourage alternatives. If we leave the action at removing modes of transport within an LEZ, we are leaving a job half done. There is not much in the bill that encourages active travel. Amendment 153 would encourage different modes of transport within the zones.
Michael Matheson
Brian Whittle will be aware that local authorities will look at their transport strategies and, if in the process of establishing low-emission zones they wish to make specific objectives around active travel, which it is within their scope to do, the moneys that are raised through the LEZ scheme can be used for those purposes. Should local authorities choose to do that, there are powers in the legislation to allow it to happen.
Brian Whittle
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, if we do not allocate the money to active travel, the danger is that the money that the schemes raise will go into a black hole and could be used for anything in local authorities’ budgets?
Michael Matheson
Brian Whittle should recognise that the money that is raised from low-emission zone fines is for the purpose of local transport provision. Therefore, if the authority makes active travel a specific provision when it sets up the low-emission zone, the money is committed for that purpose. That is how the schemes have been designed and the legislation ensures that the provision is applied, if it is one of the objectives that a local authority sets.
15:30The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 91, Against 27, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
Amendment 62 moved—[Michael Matheson].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 91, Against 27, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 62 agreed to.
Amendment 152 not moved.
Section 21—Application of penalty charges
Amendment 153 moved—[Brian Whittle].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 153 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 67, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 153 disagreed to.
Section 24—Direction to carry out a review
Amendment 63 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 26—Guidance
Amendment 64 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
That concludes group 10. We are slightly ahead of schedule and exactly one third of the way through the plan. We will have a 10-minute suspension to allow members to take a break.
15:34 Meeting suspended.15:47 On resuming—
Section 28—Provision of local services by local authorities
The Presiding Officer
Group 11 is on the provision of bus services by local transport authorities. Amendment 65, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 66, 128, 130 and 131.
Michael Matheson
Following stage 2, I have listened very carefully to what the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and local authorities have said about the bill’s provisions in this area.
Amendments 65 and 66 address the two stage 2 amendments that were concerned with municipal bus operations and would ensure that there is clarity in the new powers. The amendments recognise what Colin Smyth was also seeking to achieve at stage 2. They empower all local transport authorities in Scotland to provide services
“for the carriage of passengers by road using vehicles that require a PSV operator’s licence”
and to operate services in the commercial bus market where they consider that that will
“contribute to the implementation of their relevant general policies.”
That wide power enables a local transport authority to choose the most appropriate option for their circumstances. LTAs will continue to have proper regard to all other obligations on them, such as those regarding competition and state aid rules.
Over the coming months, my officials will continue to engage with local transport authorities, the Competition and Markets Authority, bus operators and others in developing appropriate guidance.
Amendments 128, 130 and 131 are consequential amendments.
I move amendment 65 and urge members to support the other amendments in group 11.
Colin Smyth
I am delighted that the Government has accepted Labour’s long-standing goal to lift the ban on councils running bus services, without restrictions such as limiting services to areas where there is an unmet need, as was previously specified in the bill, or requiring local authorities to set up an arm’s-length company.
Across Scotland, bus passenger numbers are falling, vital routes are disappearing and fares are rising. We desperately need to change. We need to empower our local authorities to run bus services for the benefit of their communities and break up the private monopolies that too often dominate the bus market.
Public transport should be a public service, where profits are invested in improving services and keeping fares down, not boosting shareholders’ dividends. To see the benefits of municipal ownership, we simply have to look outside the windows of this Parliament at Lothian Buses, which runs one of the most popular bus networks in the country and last year returned £7.7 million to the public purse.
Although the arm’s-length approach that has been taken in Lothian has been successful, a one-size-fits-all approach such as the one put forward by the Government at stage 2 would not work for all communities. Setting up a municipal bus company comes with significant risk and costs and it is unrealistic for a council that is simply seeking to run a small number of services. It is critical that local authorities have flexibility and can run services directly where needed, allowing them to build up capacity and expertise over time.
My stage 2 amendment delivered that, as do the amendments lodged today by the Government, which reflect and respect the decision taken by the committee at stage 2. I am therefore happy to support the Government amendments. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary’s officials for discussing the wording of the amendments with me and with others, including COSLA, before they were lodged.
Jamie Greene
I appreciate the work that the Government, the cabinet secretary and his team have done on this issue. The committee looked at the issue in its stage 1 report, in which we identified that the bill did not go far enough in empowering local authorities to have the flexibility to run bus services where they saw the need.
The issue stemmed from the fact that local authorities would be able only to run services that were classified as meeting an unmet need. By default, those have tended to be the services that commercial operators have pulled out of or do not operate because they are not commercially viable. Asking local authorities only to operate services in that environment is untenable. There was very little appetite to do that among the local authorities that we wrote to; in their responses, few of them had either the resource—financial or otherwise—or the appetite to run such services.
That issue was reflected at stage 2, when we amended the bill. I supported some of Colin Smyth’s amendments, but after stage 2, part 2 of the bill was a bit of a mess and it needed to be tidied up. Over the summer, I met a number of Scotland’s major bus operators and some of the smaller ones, and I extended the conversation to local authorities as well, so that we could find a compromise that works, that delivers on the requests of the committee and that takes into account some of the fair points that Colin Smyth raised about local authorities wanting to do their best for people in their area. We have to balance that with ensuring that we do not produce legislation that will inadvertently create issues for local authorities.
If a local authority wants to run a bus service, it should do so through the mechanism that the Government proposed; ideally, it should be through an arm’s-length company. That would keep clear blue water between the bit of the council that operates the service and the bit that tenders and issues licences to operate services. However, we know that we need to do something to improve bus patronage, which is still decreasing in Scotland.
I hope that local authorities will consider these amendments to be positive and I hope that any local authority that is considering operating a service will think carefully about the implications and give the decision the gravitas that it requires, because it is not easy, cheap or simple to do so. However, if it chooses to do so, it will have our support. I am happy to support all the Government’s amendments on bus franchising.
Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)
I am pleased to support amendment 65 and the other amendments in this group, which will give local authorities the power to operate municipal bus services, which my colleague Colin Smyth argued for during the committee stage.
Too often, it seems that the communities that we represent are being held hostage to the whims of the private profit motive. People in Hamilton experienced that recently when First Glasgow announced that it would be withdrawing the X1 bus service between Hamilton and Glasgow.
It is a popular service that is relied on by lots of local people, including hundreds of students and workers who travel into the city. The potential loss of that service, especially for people who need it at peak times, would have had a really disruptive impact on my constituents’ daily lives—in some cases, more than doubling the time and cost of commuting.
Despite the popularity of the service, the initial reason that was given was that the route was not profitable enough. However, our public services should be there to serve the interests of the people and not to fill the pockets of stakeholders in private companies.
We need more power and control over our bus services. In that example, the X1 has received a temporary reprieve following immense public pressure, with a petition lodged by Hamilton resident Rebecca Creechan reaching more than 4,700 signatures so far, but the operator has stated that that is on a use it or lose it basis, and the future of the service is not guaranteed beyond December. The amendments in the group would ensure that local authorities such as South Lanarkshire Council have the potential to step in and provide bus services when private firms withdraw and would take us towards a public transport system that serves the interests of the many and not the few.
John Finnie
I thank the cabinet secretary. He said that he listened to the debate at stage 2, and I know that he did so intently. Importantly, he also listened to COSLA, which is the representative body of local authorities and which has said that it wants the powers in the amendments. Colleagues have talked about the current provision in the bill referring to unmet need. That relates to a situation where there is no money in providing a service. We know from the demographics of people who use buses that they are the people who have many needs to be met, not least to get from A to B.
I am delighted that the Scottish Government is on board and I fully support the amendments in the group, although they are hardly revolutionary. The Scottish Greens ran a better buses campaign and heard from people the length and breadth of the country about the challenges that exist, which have fuelled the patronage decline. We need to reverse that. No one is suggesting that that will happen overnight, but it is important that local authorities take the opportunities, not least because the situation with Lothian Buses has always been anomalous. As I said in relation to an earlier amendment, we saw the turnaround that took place in East Lothian when Lothian Buses moved in, got young people on board and got them into the habit of using public transport.
We would like an extension of free public transport. It is important that there is a co-ordinated approach, as we discussed earlier in talking about transport strategy. It is a real boon that our local authorities will now be in a position to provide services, so we will support the amendments.
Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments in the group, as they put into effect Colin Smyth’s stage 2 initiative, which is good. The amendments are potentially transformational and need to be acted on urgently.
Scottish Labour strongly supports the principle of bus company ownership by local authorities. It would enable local authorities to be proactive and to ensure that communities get the bus services that they need so that people of all ages have access to employment, schools, further and higher education, health facilities, shops and community and leisure facilities—everything that we need in our daily lives. An expansion of not-for-profit bus services means that investment will benefit our communities directly.
The bus pass for the over-60s, which I introduced, was crucial in giving access to bus services for older people and gave those with cars the option of leaving their car at home when going to work or about their business. However, as Colin Smyth said, far too many people simply do not have any bus services to use or the services are too expensive. That is why we urgently need municipal bus company ownership.
The model in Scotland is Lothian Buses, which is an award-winning company that provides an affordable service, with a network right across the city and links across the region. The profits are reinvested locally.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Will the member give way?
Sarah Boyack
No—I need to be fast.
There are already calls for municipal bus companies in Glasgow and Aberdeen. I understand that in Aberdeen, the city council has noted an interest in the sale of First Bus and already owns 20 hydrogen buses that are operated either by First Aberdeen or Stagecoach. We should have municipal bus companies across Scotland, where our local authorities want to implement them, and not just in towns and cities but in rural communities.
We need to go beyond the principle. We need skills and knowledge and the sharing of expertise so that all our councils can use such services. I hope that the transport secretary will back up the power with proactive support for our hard-pressed local authorities, not just through advice from Transport Scotland but with start-up resources so that councils can use the powers to establish or buy bus companies and invest in the accessible low-emission buses that will be vital for success.
Mike Rumbles
The Liberal Democrats certainly support all the cabinet secretary’s amendments in the group. Across the chamber, every party wants to halt and reverse the long-term decline in the use of buses. It is extremely important that we empower local authorities to do so through the amendments.
Yesterday in this chamber, I was critical of the cabinet secretary on another aspect of his work; today I praise him for his work on buses. It is rare that, after the Government has introduced a bill, a minister—after a change of minister—listens to the arguments at stage 1 and in the stage 1 report, supports amendments at stage 2 and then lodges amendments at stage 3 that complete the change.
The cabinet secretary has done that, and the effect is to move us away from empowering local authorities to take on only unprofitable routes to properly empowering them to establish bus services. I say well done to the minister. I am glad that the First Minister is listening to this, because I hope that the cabinet secretary’s approach is a trend that she will encourage in all her ministers.
16:00John Mason
I wanted to make a quick point by way of intervention, but I will make a speech instead, if that is acceptable, Presiding Officer.
I point out, especially to Labour members, that when I was a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee we heard evidence from Lothian Buses that the company’s being in public ownership or not made no difference to its services and their popularity.
There are many factors in bus decline, particularly in the west of Scotland and the greater Glasgow area.
John Finnie
The member also heard about the spectacular failure of bus services in East Lothian and how the situation was recovered by the public service—that is, Lothian Buses.
John Mason
I am happy to accept that. My more general point is that the decline in bus use, particularly in the west of Scotland, is not easily explained and will not easily be sorted. One factor is that in the west we have a much wider network of local railways, which the Edinburgh area does not have, which means that bus services in Edinburgh cater for a wider range of people and journeys.
The reality is that the public—including many of my constituents who do not have cars—aspire to have cars and not use buses. There is a wider issue here, and although I am broadly supportive of public ownership and regulation, I do not think that there is a simple answer that explains the decline of bus usage.
Michael Matheson
I am pleased that my amendments were able to achieve cross-party support in the Parliament this afternoon. That is to be welcomed. They help to address an issue that we and Colin Smyth sought to address at stage 2, by providing greater clarity, which will be important in empowering local authorities.
I am grateful for members’ comments on the issues. Some members raised specific issues. Monica Lennon referred to the X1 service in Hamilton; my colleague Christina McKelvie, who is the constituency member, has been very much involved in pursuing the issue on behalf of her constituents. Efforts have succeeded in securing an extension to the service until the end of this year, so that people can try to see whether it can continue in the long term.
Monica Lennon was correct to say that the bill will empower local authorities to consider the option of delivering commercial services in their areas. I encourage all members to support the move to empower local authorities to take forward services in their areas.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Section 28A—Local transport authority bus companies
Amendment 66 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 29—Bus services improvement partnerships
The Presiding Officer
Group 12 is on bus services: consideration of needs of certain persons. Amendment 67, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 68 to 71.
Colin Smyth
The amendments in this group, which are all in my name, seek to ensure that bus services improvement plans and franchises respond to the needs of people who are living in poverty and people with relevant protected characteristics. It is important that bus services improvement partnerships deliver for all passengers, and these amendments will ensure that inclusion is at the heart of plans.
Transport has an important role to play in the lives of people who are living in poverty and people with protected characteristics. Good public transport can provide essential access to a range of opportunities and services. Equally, poor or inaccessible public transport can contribute to poverty and worsen its effects.
The amendments in this group will ensure that that is a key consideration as plans are developed. Such consideration could inform a range of aspects of plans. The most obvious example is the affordability of fares. Consideration might also impact on decisions about routes, for example, to ensure that services run through deprived areas in our communities, which are often overlooked.
The Poverty and Inequality Commission recently produced a report that highlighted the significant role of transport in addressing poverty and inequality, and made clear that the status quo is not working. It stated:
“It is clear to the Commission that action is needed on transport in order to help unlock people from poverty.”
The Government’s draft national transport strategy sets “promoting equality” as one of its key strategic priorities. These amendments are a small but practical way to put those words into action in order to develop a fairer rights-based transport system.
I move amendment 67.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 67 to 70, in the name of Colin Smyth, seek to impose additional requirements as to the content, notification of, and consultation on bus services improvement partnership plans and schemes.
The amendments are similar to several that were lodged at stage 2, which focused on ensuring that account is taken of the needs and views of those on low incomes and those who find it difficult to use or afford local services because they have one or more of the protected characteristics that are set out in section 149(7) of the Equality Act 2010. Those amendments were voted on at stage 2 and opposed by the committee at the end of the voting process. The concerns that I raised then remain.
Local authorities must already comply with the public sector equality duty and are required to assess the impact of applying a proposed new or revised policy or practice against the needs that are mentioned in section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010. That includes when setting local transport policies and developing bus services improvement partnership policies and proposals.
Further, there are substantial safeguards in place throughout the bus services improvement partnership process to ensure that local transport authorities consult those who are likely to be affected by a proposed partnership and give suitable notice to all persons in the area. The process can include the particular groups that have been identified and, coupled with the equality duty, the effect is that those groups will be included in bus services improvement partnership development and that their needs will be considered.
In a similar vein, amendment 71 seeks to require a local transport authority, when carrying out its duty to consult on a proposed franchising framework organisations that are representative of “users of local services”, to specifically consult organisations representing persons on a low income or, again, persons whose ability to use local services is likely to be affected due to characteristics that are protected in the Equality Act 2010. As I have said, local authorities must comply with the public sector equality duty. The existing duty in the franchising provisions of the bill to consult organisations that represent “users of local services” does not need to be expanded to achieve the aims of amendment 71.
There is also an additional level of scrutiny in the franchising process, which involves the decision of an independent panel that will actively consider not only the consultation and action taken on the process but any other representations that are made to it about the proposed franchising framework.
The very robust processes for both bus services improvement partnerships and franchising, along with the public sector equality duty, mean that the amendments in the group are simply unnecessary and merely complicate the provisions for no practical gain.
I therefore urge members to reject them.
The Presiding Officer
I ask Colin Smyth to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 67.
Colin Smyth
I do not share the cabinet secretary’s view that those responsibilities would create problems in the development of BSIPs and franchises, or his opinion that they are unnecessary. They do not undermine or distract from existing responsibilities. They simply add important aims on tackling inequality that are entirely consistent with the principles for our transport system that we agreed to add to the bill at the start of today’s debate.
I am sure that members across the chamber want local transport authorities to take an inclusive approach to the development of BSIPs and franchises. My amendments would make that a clear responsibility. Ensuring that BSIPs and franchises work for people living in poverty and people with protected characteristics is fundamental to their success. However, all too often, theirs are the voices that are not heard and are excluded when it comes to public transport, despite the current equality duty, which the cabinet secretary thinks is sufficient.
The amendments will also ensure best practice across the country and will lead to a far more effective and inclusive approach to our transport system.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a one-minute division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 67 disagreed to.
Amendment 68 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 68 disagreed to.
Amendment 69 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 89, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 69 disagreed to.
Amendment 70 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 89, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 70 disagreed to.
Amendment 71 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 89, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 71 disagreed to.
After section 34
16:15The Presiding Officer
Group 13 is on grants to bus service operators and accessibility conditions. Amendment 154, in the name of Colin Smyth, is the only amendment in the group.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 154 will strengthen accessibility standards on buses by requiring operators that receive bus service operator grants to provide information in accessible formats on request, and to ensure that bus drivers receive disability awareness training at least every two years. Those two issues have been highlighted as key barriers that prevent people with disabilities from being able to access public transport.
The Poverty and Inequality Commission’s recent report on transport shone a light on the challenges that face disabled people on public transport. It stated that
“while disabled people can be eligible for free concessionary bus travel, this is only useful to them if they can access services”
and specifically highlighted the lack of accessible information about journeys.
The need for accessible information about services—such as timetables—should go without saying. The need for staff to be well trained in disability awareness is, likewise, clear. However, as things stand, provision of information in accessible formats varies from operator to operator and, overall, is severely lacking.
Existing provisions around staff training are also inadequate, with training being required only at the start of a driver’s career, and with no requirement for regular updates. That creates the risk that details of the training will be forgotten over time, particularly details in respect of scenarios that drivers do not encounter daily.
There is also the risk of best practice and legal requirements changing over time, which means that drivers who have not received any training since the start of their careers will not be kept up to date. Amendment 154 seeks to address those two challenges as far as possible within the Scottish Parliament’s current powers.
I move amendment 154.
John Finnie
I clearly support Colin Smyth. To be perfectly honest, I am angered that we need amendment 154 in the first place, because the issue is so fundamental. Colin Smyth talked about accessibility. If we are to increase patronage, it is vital that we make use of buses as easy as possible. I know from both the better buses campaign and from constituency casework that driver training is an issue. I hope that members across the chamber will support the amendment.
Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)
I thank Colin Smyth for lodging amendment 154, which is important. We need to debate it, and I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say. My colleague, Jamie Greene, lodged a similar amendment at stage 2—as did I—on accessibility.
However, there is a bit of vagueness in amendment 154, and a lack of clarity about how it would work in practice. Colin Smyth is absolutely right that we need to make bus information as accessible as possible.
As members are going out tonight, if those of them who use public transport or walk look at the bus timetable at the bus stop outside our Parliament—if it is still light—they will see how small the writing is saying what time the next bus will come. Lothian Buses reduced the size of the writing even this year. For a person with any form of visual impairment, it is almost impossible to read.
There is a duty on bus companies to consider how that information is made available. Clearly, technology is moving, which is good news. However, people who have visual impairments can struggle with using mobile phones and other technology.
Although I am very sympathetic to amendment 154 and hope that what it suggests will happen, Conservatives cannot support it as it is drafted.
Michael Matheson
I appreciate what Colin Smyth is trying to achieve with amendment 154. Measures to improve bus driver disability awareness training and accessible information are important. However, I have serious concerns that the amendment, which seeks, in essence, to require bus operators to take measures to improve accessibility for disabled passengers, relates to the reserved matter of equal opportunities and is outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In any case, European Union law already requires that local service operators ensure that their drivers receive disability awareness training.
Regulation of equal opportunities is a reserved matter. The Department for Transport plans to publish best-practice guidance that will be applicable across the UK on provision of disability awareness training in the bus sector. That guidance is being informed by the experience of disabled passengers, bus operators and training providers. The Department for Transport’s inclusive transport strategy commits to developing a disability equality and awareness training package that is to be made available to transport operators by the summer of 2020.
Much is already being done in Scotland through the bus stakeholder group, which I chair, and Transport Scotland’s annual accessibility delivery plan for 2019-20, which has a workstream that is dedicated to bus accessibility. We continue to work closely with the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland and bus operators to ensure on-going improvements in bus accessibility. I assure members that I will consider whether there are, within our existing competence, further measures that we can take through guidance on accessibility.
The Bus Services Act 2017 made amendments to the Equality Act 2010 to provide powers in relation to accessible information. The Scottish Government formally responded to the DFT’s consultation on its proposals for future accessible information regulations. We expect that that will result in improvements in provision of accessible information.
Amendment 154 relates to a reserved matter and is not necessary, so I urge members to vote against it.
Colin Smyth
Anyone who says that amendment 154 is unnecessary is simply not listening to Scotland’s disabled people. I and, I am sure, many members have heard first-hand about the problems and barriers that are put in the way of disabled people as a result of lack of information or poor disability awareness training.
Although the right to accessible information is covered by the Equality Act 2010, the reality is that that is simply not being delivered. New legislation is under way to improve on-board journey information, but nothing is being done to improve access to the information that customers need in advance of a journey. Why should members have easy access to a bus timetable in a format that they can read but a blind person cannot?
Mike Rumbles
I thank Colin Smyth for taking an intervention. I realise that he is winding up and that I cannot contribute to the debate without making an intervention.
I was surprised by what the cabinet secretary said about the matter being reserved. Training is not a reserved matter. If there was some dubiety about that, the Presiding Officer would not have selected amendment 154 because it would not have been admissible. I am sure that the Presiding Officer will correct me if I am wrong. Does Colin Smyth agree with me?
The Presiding Officer
I say to be helpful that I do not rule on the competence of amendments; I rule on their admissibility only.
Colin Smyth
Mike Rumbles has made a very important point. The cabinet secretary implied that the proposal is somehow outwith our powers. I have been very careful to avoid lodging amendments that are outwith the Scottish Parliament’s competence. The Scotland Act 1998 states that the Scottish Parliament cannot promote equal opportunities through regulation or prohibition, but it allows us to encourage promotion of equal opportunities. That is exactly what amendment 154 would do by linking the new requirements to bus service operator grants. I am very clear that that is within the Parliament’s competence.
Existing equalities legislation is a floor, not a ceiling, for our ambition to have a more equal Scotland. Amendment 154 gives us an opportunity to take another, albeit small, step towards far greater equality in Scotland.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 154 disagreed to.
After section 37
The Presiding Officer
Group 14 is on ticketing arrangements. Amendment 155, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 72 to 74 and 129.
Jamie Greene
At stage 2, we had a wide-ranging discussion about smart ticketing and the intention behind part 3 of the bill. It is not a huge part, but it is important. There is a genuine, cross-party desire to improve and to make better use of smart ticketing technology, and the reason for that is simply to encourage take-up of public transport. We feel that there are barriers to access and many reasons why people will not move from their cars to buses. Other than price and reliability, one of the main reasons that has come up is confusion about pricing and the ability to pay.
The REC Committee looked at the subject during the bill’s passage and I have chosen to bring back one specific issue, which is contactless payment. As we know, the use of contactless payment is on the up on most forms of transport. I think that the majority of sensible operators are introducing it anyway because, by default, it increases patronage, makes it easier for people to pay and, therefore, increases revenues into the services. That is happening anyway, but it is still not happening in many other places, and we believe that the bill can go further and be more ambitious if the Government takes the lead on that.
My amendment 155 says:
“The Scottish Ministers must ... make provision requiring that contactless payment options are available as soon as reasonably practicable throughout Scotland”.
There is no immediate mandate and we are not suggesting any recourse against operators that do not introduce it with immediate effect, but it is important that the Government shows some leadership on the issue, and the way for it to do that is to make regulations and bring to Parliament a proposal that says, “This is our plan and our strategy for rolling out contactless payment on all forms of transport right across the country.” The Government can do that in a reasonable way and we reworded the amendment for that reason. It would allow the Government some flexibility as to how and when it did that, but I would absolutely like to see it happen, and I hope that members will support me.
The other amendments in the group, which the cabinet secretary has lodged, are largely technical and we are happy to support them.
I move amendment 155.
The Presiding Officer
Thank you. I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 72 and the other amendments in the group.
Michael Matheson
Jamie Greene’s amendment 155 would oblige the Scottish ministers to make regulations
“requiring that contactless payment options are available as soon as reasonably practicable throughout Scotland for payment for entitlement to travel.”
Mr Greene lodged the same amendment at stage 2, as he said. I said at stage 2 that the amendment seemed unnecessary, and I remain of that view. Contactless payment technology is already rolling out at a considerable pace. ScotRail, all major bus operators and a number of other modes already accept contactless payment at stations and on board.
In the short time since stage 2, we have seen further growth, with Lothian Buses extending contactless payment to all its buses, and 29 smaller operators have determined commercial demand and return on investment to take advantage of our £1.1 million smart pay grant fund, meaning that more than 80 per cent of buses in Scotland now accept contactless payment.
16:30Additionally, it should be noted that regulations made under amendment 155 could not require railway service operators to provide contactless options. Such provision would fall outwith the Scottish ministers’ devolved competence on the basis that it relates to the regulation of passenger railway services, which is a reserved matter.
For those reasons, I ask Jamie Greene to withdraw amendment 155. If it is pressed, I urge members to reject it.
Amendments 72 and 73 make minor clarifying amendments to the list of persons with whom ministers must consult before making a ticketing scheme.
Amendment 74 clarifies that the ticketing provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, as amended by the bill, will continue to apply to Edinburgh tram services. It also allows for the provisions to apply to any new tramway services that might be proposed in future.
Amendment 129 makes a minor formatting change to the 2001 act.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I support what Jamie Greene is trying to do, but the implementation of amendment 155 would fall short of what we require in a number of respects.
In his comments, Jamie Greene referred to all forms of transport. Let me give an example of a genuine difficulty with that. On a visit to Barra, I rented a cycle for my visit to Vatersay from a little shed at the back of someone’s house. It was a little business renting out bicycles and it was being run by students at the high school on Barra.
The phrase “all forms of transport” would catch that small business. I do not think that the school students should be denied the opportunity to run a cash business renting out a form of transport. Similarly, by not defining the transport involved, amendment 155 would catch air travel, taxis, and so on, not just the hire of bicycles on Barra.
There are also a couple of issues that ought to give us modest concern. In many parts of Scotland, contactless payment will need the customer to be able to get a mobile phone signal. It might come as news to some—not Jamie Greene, I am sure—that there is not yet a mobile phone signal everywhere. At home, we have no mobile phone signal. Pockets like that will probably remain, so the amendment discriminates against rural areas.
Also, the requirement for contactless payment methods might increase the pressure to restrict the ways in which people can pay. I do not, but many of my generation want to continue to use cash, so we would like there to be a requirement for transport operators also to take cash for those who want to use it.
Although I admire the ambition of the amendment and support the philosophical view behind it, I cannot find myself supporting it in the form in which it is presented.
Jamie Greene
I thank Stewart Stevenson for his input but it is worth pointing out that I am not saying that contactless is the only option; it is an additional method of payment, and I think that it would be welcome. Amendment 155 does not say to Bob’s Bikes in Barra that he would need to use contactless as the only method to receive payment.
The amendment refers to the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and I am pretty sure that bicycle rental is not covered by that anyway.
In my opening, I might have referred to all forms of transport but the amendment does not cover that. The amendment says that I would like the Government to lay regulations to ensure that the roll-out of contactless increases. As the minister said, it is happening organically, which is great news, and I congratulate those who are using it, but we want to see it rolled out everywhere.
In much of Scotland, many forms of transport are not just cash only, but exact change only. That is still a barrier to people who are used to using a bank card or mobile phone to pay for access to a service elsewhere in the country. This amendment is helpful. It does not force everyone to use contactless payments or to accept only contactless payment; rather, it asks the Government to take the lead and come forward with a plan on how to roll it out as far as reasonably possible. For that reason, I will press amendment 155.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 69, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 155 disagreed to.
Section 38—Ticketing schemes
Amendments 72 and 73 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
After section 40
Amendment 74 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 41A—Travel concession schemes: application to community transport
The Presiding Officer
Group 15 is on community transport services. Amendment 75, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 76 and 121 to 125.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 75, 76 and 125 in this group clarify the use of the term “community transport services” that is used in sections 41A and 68B of the bill.
In section 41A, which creates a one-time reporting requirement for the Scottish ministers, amendments 75 and 76 remove the term and make it clear that any additional transport services that come within the ambit of the report are those which ministers consider appropriate.
In section 68B of the bill, which places a duty on health boards discharging certain functions, amendment 125 provides that the prescription of any other transport services for the purposes of those functions is to be done by regulations.
Amendments 121 to 124 remove references to “health and social care partnership” from sections 68A and 68B. That term has no meaning in the legal framework around health boards and is therefore unnecessary.
All the amendments in this group seek only to provide clarity and effectiveness to amendments that were accepted at stage 2; they do not alter the effect or intention of the amended sections and I urge members to accept my amendments in this group.
I move amendment 75.
Amendment 75 agreed to.
Amendment 76 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 47—Exceptions to parking prohibitions
The Presiding Officer
Group 16 is on parking prohibitions: applications and exemptions. Amendment 77, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 78 to 80, 22 and 133.
Colin Smyth
It is important that the proposed ban on pavement parking works as effectively as possible. Significant concerns have been raised about the potential unintended consequences of the exceptions for deliveries and collections. Amendments 77 and 79 would remove the exceptions from the bill and require ministers to replace them with secondary legislation.
My intention is not to remove the exceptions entirely, as I appreciate that they serve a purpose. However, given the serious concerns that have been raised about the current wording of the provision, it is not appropriate to have it in the bill. Putting the exceptions in secondary legislation would allow for additional consultation to ensure that the wording works, and would ensure that it can be easily amended if it acts as a loophole, as many people fear that it will.
My aim is simply to avoid a situation in which primary legislation is required if the Government wants to make what would be a minor change to this section of the bill.
Amendment 78, in the name of Michael Matheson, will remove a requirement in one of the exceptions to leave pavements unobstructed. The addition of a requirement to leave a space of at least 1.5m at all times was a key improvement to the bill at stage 2 and I do not support undoing that. It is fundamentally important that the ban puts an end to cars obstructing pavements, and protecting the requirement to leave a space of 1.5m in the case of all exceptions is key to that.
I am sympathetic to amendment 80, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, which looks to introduce an exception for community transport services. However, I am not clear on the circumstances in which the exception would apply, and it does not include a requirement to leave a space of 1.5m to avoid obstructing the pavement, as other exceptions in the bill currently do.
I move amendment 77.
Michael Matheson
Section 47(6) sets out the exceptions that relate to vehicles that are parked in the course of business. Amendment 77 seeks to remove that subsection from the bill, and amendment 79 seeks to replace it at the end of section 47 with a regulation-making power.
Amendments 77 and 79 are very similar to those sought by Mr Smyth at stage 2. However, with amendment 79, Mr Smyth seeks to introduce a new subsection that would enable regulations to be made that would impose
“such other conditions as the Scottish Ministers consider necessary”.
As no procedure has been cited for the regulations, they would attract the negative parliamentary procedure. In effect, that would mean that the aspects of section 47 that attracted the most debate at stage 2 would be re-enacted with amendments in subordinate legislation with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.
Given the importance of the parking prohibitions and the recognised need to keep the operation of the exceptions as narrow as possible, the Scottish Government considers it preferable to rely instead on the powers in section 47(11) to modify the exceptions in future. As they are required to be made through the affirmative procedure, that would ensure greater opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the exceptions.
The purpose of amendment 78 is simply to clarify that if a driver is parked wholly in an existing parking bay on a pavement, they cannot be penalised for being in breach of the 1.5m restriction.
Amendment 80, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seeks to add a further exception to allow a community bus service or
“other similar community transport service”
to double park when collecting or dropping off a passenger.
Unfortunately, the amendment has much the same drafting problems as it did at stage 2. The phrase
“other similar community transport service”
is a particularly vague term, which might lead to ambiguity about which vehicles it applies to.
I recognise that there might be circumstances in which exceptions should be made to parking prohibitions for certain road users, but it is vital that we properly and clearly define those groups to avoid weakening the prohibitions. That is one of the reasons why we took the regulation-making power in section 47(11) to which I referred.
I am happy to commit to consider introducing regulations that address the issue—following detailed consultation with community bus services and other providers—to ensure that we properly capture the services that need to be exempted.
Amendment 22, in the name of Graham Simpson, seeks to require that the regulations that are made under section 44(1) are made by affirmative rather than negative procedure.
The regulations will contain procedures for the making of exemption orders by local authorities. They are procedural and technical in nature and, as such, the Government considers that the negative procedure provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
However, I recognise the importance of the exemption orders process to the overall effectiveness of the pavement parking prohibition and would therefore be content for the regulations to undergo the more detailed scrutiny that the affirmative procedure affords.
Amendment 133, in my name, simply changes the long title of the bill to reflect the addition of the prohibition of parking at dropped footways at stage 2.
I urge members to support amendments 78, 22 and 133 and to reject amendments 77, 79 and 80.
16:45Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
For those who cannot access private transport, community transport providers are vital in order to attend health appointments, see friends and engage with their community. In the words of the Community Transport Association, they are a “lifeline” for more than 100,000 Scots. I heard what the cabinet secretary said; therefore, I will not move my amendment 80. I am happy for him to scrutinise the matter through regulations instead.
With regard to the other amendments, we do not support amendments 77 and 79, in the name of Colin Smyth. We believe that they would replace current provisions in the bill with something worse and hinder the day-to-day operations of many businesses.
I am happy to support amendments 78 and 133, in the name of the cabinet secretary. We are also happy to support amendment 22, in the name of my colleague, Graham Simpson, because it would improve scrutiny of pavement parking orders.
Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)
As the cabinet secretary outlined, amendment 22 deals with the procedure that ministers would use for laying regulations on the way that councils should go about making areas exempt from pavement parking provisions subject to the affirmative procedure. If we ban parking on pavements, which I believe will be the outcome today, there could be issues in areas where roads are not wide. Councils will come under pressure to exempt some areas. They will have to operate under the regulations that are laid by the Scottish Government, so it is vital that Parliament can see those regulations, scrutinise them and accept or reject them. That is why the affirmative procedure is most appropriate. I am glad to have the cabinet secretary’s support.
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
I am over the moon that we have come to this part of the bill. People want to get on with the job, so I will speak to the amendments.
With regard to amendment 77, I understand where Colin Smyth is coming from. I had a chat with Colin and Living Streets Scotland with regard to secondary legislation. However, I cannot support the amendment. Colin Smyth said that it could take time. We have waited long enough for the rules and regulations on pavement parking to come in. Leaving out the whole of section 47(6) is a big mistake, and I could not support that. I cannot support amendment 79, because it would drag the process out for too long. Those amendments would mean that the restriction on pavement parking, in order that people who are disabled are able to get along the pavement, would be lost. I fear that we would not get that back.
I support amendment 78, because of everything that the cabinet secretary said. I am pleased that amendment 80 will not be moved. We will look at that issue again, because there is a lot of sympathy for amendment 80. I will support amendment 133; I hope that everyone will support it. It sums up everything that has gone through the bill. I thank members and everyone who has contributed. I am happy to support amendment 22, in the name of Graham Simpson. He is right that we will probably need to look further afield when local councils get the responsibilities.
Mike Rumbles
At stage 2, I lodged five amendments on the issue of leaving a 1.5m gap as a compromise between the positions of the people who wanted a complete ban on pavement parking and the people who realised that businesses need to function and that a complete ban would cause real difficulties. I was particularly taken by the evidence that we heard at stage 1 from non-commercial organisations such as Living Streets and others concerned with disability access. They said that, if the 1.5m gap was there and not obstructed, it was a reasonable compromise between those two arguments. I am, therefore, disappointed that Colin Smyth has lodged his amendment.
John Mason
As Mike Rumbles knows, I was on the committee when we put forward the idea of a 1.5m gap, which I thought was a compromise. However, when I wrote to the 32 local authorities, I got very little support for the idea because they felt that it would be impractical.
Mike Rumbles
That is a fair point. However, I listened to the organisations that gave evidence to the committee at stage 1—as, I am sure, did John Mason—and I understood them to be satisfied with the 1.5m gap as a compromise. Therefore, as I say, I am disappointed that Colin Smyth has decided that he wants to take out section 47(6) altogether and give the power to ministers to impose regulations. I am pleased that the minister said that he does not want to do that. The amendments that I lodged at stage 2 were made in consultation with the minister. I may be getting him into trouble with my praise for his approachability on the subject, but we got together and worked out that compromise. I thought that the committee was happy with that, so I am disappointed that the issue has come back.
I will also comment on the fact that one of my stage 2 amendments will be taken out by the minister’s amendment 78. He is correct and I support him on that. It was a technical amendment and I think that we went too far, because the section refers to a parking place. I hope that the other four of my previous amendments will remain in the bill, because I remind everybody that the 1.5m gap is a compromise. There were people who wanted a complete ban, and I understand where they were coming from because there is nothing more irritating for disabled people or mums or dads with prams than having to move on to the road, given the danger that that poses. The compromise ensures that there is a 1.5m gap, and that, surely, is the right thing.
Jamie Greene
I want to bring some other points to the conversation, which has been largely technical. This is the only opportunity that we have to talk about pavement parking and double parking, and I have some observations that are important to make for people outside the debate who are wondering what effect the legislation will have on them.
I am positive about tackling pavement parking and double parking; it is good that we have cross-party support on them and that the bill is tackling them. However, the past few weeks are testament to the fact that it is important that we pass bills that make sense and that can be implemented in a logical and practical way.
I want to point out a couple of things that people are still unsure about, or have reservations about. I do not know whether the minister will be able to address them after we have passed the bill, through regulations or other secondary legislation, but we need to take them into account.
First, we all have streets in our areas on which the local authority actively encourages pavement parking for the simple reason that it keeps cars off the road and allows carriageways to be passable. The big question, if we legislate to ban that practice, is where those cars will go. Displacement has cropped up throughout the debate and we have not found a solution for it. If cars are moved from the pavement on to the road and the road becomes impassable, those people will have to park elsewhere.
The Presiding Officer
Mr Greene, I do not want to stop you, but we are speaking specifically to the amendments in group 16. Your remarks are important, but they should have been made at stage 2. If you have remarks that are pertinent to the amendments in the group, please continue.
Jamie Greene
Thank you, Presiding Officer: I will bring my remarks back to the amendments in group 16. They concern instances in which we would create exemptions. The key is to allow local authorities to decide which streets can be exempt from the legislation.
On waiting times, which Colin Smyth’s amendments address, we still have to allow for delivery of goods and services and we have to let taxis and other vehicles go about their normal business, but do so in the spirit that the bill is trying to achieve. We are all very sympathetic to what it is trying to achieve, but none of the amendments in the group addresses how local authorities will tackle the matter of displacing cars from pavements on to the roads. That is something that we need to be aware of when we go back to our constituencies.
The Presiding Officer
Thank you, Mr Greene. Those were important points, and I did not want to cut you off. I was just making sure that we stick to the amendments.
Colin Smyth
The potential problems that will be created by the deliveries exemption to the pavement parking ban have been raised over and over again since the bill was introduced. Given the importance of a workable and effective ban on pavement parking, it would be irresponsible simply to bury our heads in the sand and to keep ignoring the warnings. If the current provision in the bill is fine, as the cabinet secretary and others argue, it would work just as well in secondary legislation as it would in primary legislation. Amendment 77 would not change the provision. There seems to be confusion among some members about that.
If the exemption creates problems in practice, regulations can easily be changed to deal with that. That will not be the case if the provision remains in primary legislation. Therefore, nothing would be lost by moving the exemption from the bill into secondary legislation. Sandra White said that that would cause delays, but it would not. It is a change from primary legislation to secondary legislation, but the provision would remain.
Mike Rumbles
The point that I was trying to make is that it is surely our job to interrogate the proposed legislation, and it is for us to be able to amend the bill. If the provision were to be transferred to regulations at a future date, the provision would be delayed. We cannot amend regulations as they come in—we must just accept them or reject them. Hard work has been done on the matter. It would be remiss of us to take the provision out of the bill. We are doing our job.
Colin Smyth
At stage 1 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s deliberations on the bill, Mike Rumbles argued completely the opposite position—that the provision should be moved from primary to secondary legislation. It is fine to say that if it does not work we can change the law, but changing primary legislation is a very lengthy and complex process, whereas changing secondary legislation is not.
Mike Rumbles
Will the member take another intervention?
Colin Smyth
I do not have time.
Mike Rumbles
You said things that are not true.
Members: Oh!
Colin Smyth
Presiding Officer, the only thing that I can do is refer Mike Rumbles to the stage 1 report, which was unanimously agreed by all members of the committee.
Nothing in the provision would be lost by moving the exemption from the bill to secondary legislation. That would act as a safeguard to ensure that the exemption did not act as a loophole or undermine the ban. I hope that members will support what is, frankly, a commonsense amendment.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 90, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 77 disagreed to.
17:00Amendment 78 moved—[Michael Matheson].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 89, Against 30, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 78 agreed to.
Amendment 79 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 90, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 79 disagreed to.
Amendment 80 not moved.
Colin Smyth
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During the debate on group 16, Mike Rumbles got to his feet and in effect accused me of misleading Parliament over a recommendation that was made by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee at stage 1 of the bill. That recommendation, which was unanimously agreed by members of the committee, said:
“The Committee believes that the exemption in the bill to allow 20 minutes for loading and unloading of deliveries may have the unintended consequence of creating a national exemption for pavement parking by commercial vehicles. However, more fundamentally, it is concerned that the 20 minute time limit is an arbitrary one and, on that basis, it questions the appropriateness of including this provision in legislation ... The Committee therefore calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to remove the 20 minute exemption for deliveries and loading from the Bill. It considers that a more appropriate and workable mechanism for managing commercial delivery and loading arrangements should be developed and included in guidance.”
As that recommendation was supported by all members of the committee, it was inappropriate for one of them to accuse me of misleading Parliament when I made that point in the course of the debate.
The Presiding Officer
I am sure that members will be grateful for the clarification. [Interruption.]
Before I deal with the point of order, I point out that there are clearly disputes between members on matters of opinion, which are matters for them. I advise members that we are currently falling behind schedule. Such matters are simply ones on which members disagree; they are not the same as voting matters. I therefore encourage members—
Mike Rumbles rose—
The Presiding Officer
I will take a point of order from Mr Rumbles.
Mike Rumbles
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I cannot let that go by. For more than 20 years, I have argued that the chamber is the place where we discuss legislation—[Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer
Order, please. Let us hear Mr Rumbles.
Mike Rumbles
Since I was first elected here more than 20 years ago, I have consistently argued that the chamber is the place to discuss legislation. That is us doing our job. What I objected to was Colin Smyth’s standing up and saying that I had previously argued for the provision to be moved from primary to secondary legislation. He knows that not to be true, but he still said it. It was wrong of him to do so. I have made my point; I hope that Colin Smyth will withdraw what he said.
The Presiding Officer
I reiterate that such matters are not points of order for the chair to rule on; they are simply matters of opinion or points of dispute between members. Both members have made their points very clearly. I suggest that we now move on to the next group of amendments.
After section 47B
The Presiding Officer
Group 17 is on caravan parking prohibition. Amendment 156, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.
Jeremy Balfour
We move to perhaps the key amendment of the afternoon. So that there is no misunderstanding, I state that I am a great fan of caravans—I was caravanning at Easter.
Amendment 156 falls under part 4, which covers “Exceptions to parking prohibitions”. It would add a new section, which is designed to ensure that caravans cannot be parked on a public road
“unless the owner of the caravan has received written permission from the local authority.”
That may seem to be a slightly technical issue, but I am aware that caravans being parked on public roads is becoming a big issue, particularly in the Lothians, although I have received representations from other parts of Scotland, too.
Amendment 156 would bring an end to the practice of caravans being parked for long periods—I am talking about months or even years—in residential neighbourhoods, quite often some distance away from the caravan owner’s house. Those caravans are blocking valuable parking spaces for local residents and reducing visibility and safety for pedestrians and road users.
Amendment 156 would give the necessary authority to local councils and the police to remove those caravans from our streets. I have spoken to councillors in Edinburgh, Midlothian and other parts of Scotland, and they fully support that move.
John Finnie
I may have missed it, but has the member produced an equality impact assessment for his proposal, particularly in relation to the disproportionate impact that it would have on the Gypsy Traveller community?
Jeremy Balfour
The member raises a really interesting point. My proposal would have no impact at all on Gypsy Travellers, because they do not park on roads but in appropriate places.
In areas such as Edinburgh’s Portobello beach, caravans have been parked up for several months, which has caused residents major problems. Under current legislation, the council and the police are powerless to move the caravans on. Many caravan users use the loophole in the law to park their caravans for free, rather than using the caravan sites and compounds that are designated and readily available for the safe long-term storage of caravans.
Amendment 156 would ensure that caravans are stored in the correct facilities away from carriageways, which would improve access and safety for local road users and communities. I urge members to accept my amendment.
I move amendment 156.
John Finnie
It is apparent that the member has not done an equality impact assessment. If he had done, he would have had due regard to my earlier point about the disproportionate impact on the Gypsy Traveller community.
The member’s focus seems to be entirely urban, but the Parliament must play its part in addressing the long-standing discrimination against that group of individuals who move about—theirs is a mobile lifestyle. I fail to understand how some of the language that he has used is at all helpful. I urge members not to support the amendment.
Michael Matheson
Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 156 seeks to introduce a national ban on parking caravans, including motorhomes, on a road adjacent to a footway.
I am unclear about the reasoning behind the proposed national ban, but the practical effect would be that no one would be allowed to park their caravan or motorhome on the road outside their house, nor would they be able to park on a street and pop into a local shop to buy something, without having local authority permission to do so. I assume that it is not Mr Balfour’s intention for his amendment to be so extremely far-reaching.
Jeremy Balfour
What is the difference between my proposal and a person having to get a permit in order to park their car outside their house? Surely those are very similar things.
Michael Matheson
Someone who was heading off for the weekend with their caravan and who chose to pull over and stop at a shop for the purpose of buying something would find that they were not permitted to do so, purely because there happened to be a footway beside the road, without the permission of a local authority. Frankly, that is somewhat ridiculous.
If the amendment is trying to deal with people residing in caravans that are parked on streets, that issue is already addressed in legislation. Additionally, the police have extensive powers regarding obstruction, if it is considered that a caravan is parked in such a way as to cause an obstruction. Local authorities also have the power to introduce a traffic regulation order if an issue arises in a specific area.
In addition, amendment 156 is technically deficient in that the regulation-making power in subsection (4), although on the face of it extremely broad, would not permit subordinate legislation to be introduced that would enable effective enforcement; an express power to create an offence or to introduce a civil penalty would be needed. The prohibition is also not tied to the existing enforcement mechanisms in the bill for the other parking prohibitions.
Finally, and importantly, this issue was not raised in evidence at stage 1 or at any point during the passage of the bill. Introducing such a sweeping and flawed prohibition at this late stage in the process is not a good way to go about making law. I therefore urge members to reject amendment 156.
Jeremy Balfour
In light of the cabinet secretary’s remarks about the technicalities, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 156.
Amendment 156, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 48—Imposition of penalty charges
Amendment 81 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 87, Against 31, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 81 agreed to.
Amendment 82 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 87, Against 31, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 82 agreed to.
Section 49—Enforcement of parking prohibitions
Amendment 83 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 87, Against 31, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 83 agreed to.
Section 51—Removal of motor vehicles parked contrary to parking prohibitions
17:15The Presiding Officer
Group 18 is on the requirement to consult before making regulations on the removal, moving and disposal of vehicles. Amendment 157, in the name of Graham Simpson, on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, is grouped with amendments 158 and 159.
Graham Simpson
Amendments 157 to 159 are in my name, but I lodged them on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As members know, one of the committee’s primary functions is to ensure that delegated powers in bills are appropriate. Like the rest of the Parliament, we want to ensure that the legislation that is on the statute book is fit for purpose. Sections 51(1), 52(1) and 53(1) create regulation-making powers, using the negative procedure, about the removal, moving and potential disposal of motor vehicles when they are parked on a pavement or adjacent to a dropped footway or are double parked.
At stage 1, the Government said that the use of secondary legislation will allow proposals to be developed and consulted on, but there is no express requirement to consult in sections 51 to 53. Although the committee looks at each power on its merits, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 has similar regulation-making powers in which the Scottish ministers are required to consult such representative organisations as they think fit. The committee noted that powers to remove, move and dispose of vehicles engaged the right that is guaranteed under article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights to peaceful enjoyment of property.
At stage 1, the committee asked the Government whether it would be more appropriate for a requirement to consult representative organisations to be set out in the bill. The Government said that it is a matter of standard practice when promoting any transport-related secondary legislation to consult a wide range of representative bodies. During the cabinet secretary’s evidence to the committee, he added that he was “very open” to the committee’s views and was “happy” to give further consideration to having a requirement to consult on the bill to
“put the matter beyond doubt.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 23 October 2018; c 15.]
However, no such amendments were lodged at stage 2 and, after a further request from the committee last week, the Scottish Government confirmed that it did not plan to lodge any such amendments at stage 3.
Although the committee has no reason to doubt the Scottish Government’s commitment to consult on the regulations, we need to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose for the Government of the day and any future Government. I lodged amendments 157 to 159 on behalf of the committee to reflect that aim.
I move amendment 157.
Jamie Greene
I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its input on the bill. We wait to hear the Government’s position, so all I will say is that I hope that the Government will reflect on the issue. It is unprecedented and unusual for a committee to intervene in such a way with amendments of this nature. I hope that members on the Government benches will support the committee.
Michael Matheson
Amendments 157 to 159 seek to introduce a requirement that, prior to making regulations under sections 51(1), 52(1) and 53(1), the Scottish ministers consult
“such persons or organisations as appear to them to be representative of drivers and other road users, and ... such other persons as they consider appropriate.”
As pointed out in discussions with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee when the matter was raised at stage 1, it is the Scottish Government’s practice to undertake consultations when bringing forward any new legislation. Consultations are held with a wide range of representative bodies, including, where appropriate, organisations that are representative of drivers, and the process for making the regulations under these sections will be no different.
Although the Scottish Government does not consider there to be a need for a requirement in the bill to consult certain bodies, we recognise that putting a requirement in the bill puts the matter beyond doubt. I am therefore willing to accept the amendments as written.
Amendment 157 agreed to.
Section 52—Moving motor vehicles parked contrary to parking prohibitions
Amendment 158 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.
Section 53—Disposal of removed motor vehicles
Amendment 159 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.
After section 54
Amendment 84 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 57—Ministerial guidance
Amendment 85 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 75, Against 29, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
After section 58
The Presiding Officer
We move to group 19. We have just passed the agreed time limit, so, under rule 9.8.4A, I will allow the debate to continue, but I will limit it to members who have a right to speak on the amendments in the group—
Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
Oh, no.
The Presiding Officer
May I have an indication of how many members want to speak on the amendments in this group?
Cabinet secretary and Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, I see that quite a few members want to speak on the matter. We missed the cut-off by seconds—by one minute, in fact—and standing orders suggest that if that happens members can contribute only if they intervene on members who have amendments in the group. The alternative is that one of you moves, and I accept, a motion without notice to move the timeline by—let us say—up to 10 minutes, which will have the effect of knocking out every timeline, including decision time, by 10 minutes. We would put such a motion to a vote, of course. Cabinet secretary, are you minded to take that approach?
Michael Matheson
I am keen to accommodate members who want to speak, and I will be happy for them to make interventions during my speech, if that enables them to make their points.
The Presiding Officer
Rather than move the timeline.
Michael Matheson
Rather than move the timeline.
The Presiding Officer
Very well. In that case, I suggest to members who want to speak in the debate on group 19, which will be limited, that you need to make an intervention on one of the members who is due to speak—Colin Smyth, Jamie Greene or the cabinet secretary. Indeed, if a member wishes to contribute to the debate, I urge them to intervene on Colin Smyth. Is that clear?
Group 19 is on other parking restrictions. Amendment 160, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendment 161.
Colin Smyth
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will do my best to look for all members who wish to—
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Will the member give way? [Laughter.]
Colin Smyth
I am happy to take intervention number 1.
Mark Ruskell
I thank Colin Smyth for giving way and I thank him for lodging amendment 160, which is similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2.
It is hugely important that we ensure that cycle lanes are safe and that we remove the danger of parked cars from cycle lanes. I know, from going out cycling with my children, that parked cars are a major hazard, which force cyclists to move around them, often into the door space of parked vehicles and even into a line of traffic coming in the opposite direction. It is important that we get a ban in place and I thank Colin Smyth for lodging amendment 160.
Colin Smyth
As Mark Ruskell said, amendment 160 aims to address an anomaly in parking enforcement in relation to cycle lanes. The law was changed to allow mandatory cycle lanes to be introduced without a traffic regulation order, in order to simplify the process and encourage local authorities to do that. However, as the law stands, only the police can enforce the ban on parking in cycle lanes that are introduced in that manner. That is a significant problem, given that the majority of councils in Scotland have now decriminalised parking enforcement. Currently, the only way to enforce the ban on parking in mandatory cycle lanes is for councils to go through the costly and time-consuming TRO process for each cycle lane in their area. That means that although parking in cycling lanes is already banned, the ban is often, in effect, unenforceable.
Amendment 160 addresses that by adding an overarching ban on parking in mandatory cycle lanes to the Traffic Signs Amendment (Scotland) Regulations and General Directions 2018.
Claudia Beamish
Will the member take an intervention?
Sarah Boyack
Will the member take an intervention? [Laughter.]
Colin Smyth
I am happy to take an intervention.
Claudia Beamish
I strongly support this amendment from my colleague and friend Colin Smyth on the prohibition of parking in cycle lanes. For a long time, there has been regular discussion of cyclists’ concerns about the issue in the cross-party group on cycling, walking and buses.
As an urban cyclist, I feel strongly that there are significant dangers to cyclists in having to regularly pull in and out of cycle lanes due to parked vehicles. There should be equal rights for road users, and this is a further opportunity to recognise that the car is no longer king. I ask members to please support Colin Smyth’s amendment.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 160 will mean that all mandatory cycle lanes will be covered by the ban, so councils with decriminalised parking enforcement will have a legal basis on which to enforce it without the need for TROs. What is the point of procedures that rightly made it easier for councils to introduce mandatory cycle lanes without TROs, if we then make them impossible to enforce? My amendment removes that anomaly.
It is no secret that current cycling rates are just not good enough and fall well short of the Government’s target.
Sarah Boyack
Many constituents have written to me on this matter. As we know from surveys, there is a particular issue for many women, for whom the perception of danger on our roads is one of the things that puts them off cycling. The situation is good for neither cyclists nor drivers, because cyclists have to divert from a lane that is marked for cycling on to the main road. A wider safety issue needs to be addressed.
I very much hope that we get this amendment through today.
Colin Smyth
I thank Sarah Boyack for that important intervention.
If the Government is serious about increasing cycling rates and making cycling safer, as Sarah Boyack alluded to, we should not accept barriers being put in the way of increasing the number of mandatory cycle lanes.
Amendment 161, in the name of Jamie Greene, also looks to address a problem created by the move to decriminalise parking enforcement, which relates to parking outside schools. I believe that his amendment, which requires consultation, is a reasonable way of looking into that issue. I am therefore happy to support it.
I move amendment 160.
Jamie Greene
I will restrict my comments to amendment 161 and thereby discourage people from intervening to talk about cycle lanes.
There is a wider point about asking the Government to look at the issues that amendments in this group seek to address. We have had a lot of correspondence on both those issues, which are important ones to consider.
We talked about them at stage 2, when I had a specific problem with the way that we enforce parking outside schools, and the fact that some local authority areas are decriminalised parking zones and others are not. The evidence is not just anecdotal; we have seen situations outside schools in which police officers enforce some rules and traffic wardens enforce others. We also know that many local authorities have a shortage of traffic wardens, who cannot be in all places outside schools during peak periods at the beginning and end of the day.
We all agree that we need to ensure that parking outside schools is done considerately and in a way that does not pose a safety risk. At the moment there are clearly issues, or at least a misunderstanding of the regulations. When we spoke about the issue at stage 2, the minister said that he would send a communiqué to local authorities on this matter. I do not think that that is enough.
Like Colin Smyth, what I want is a proper consultation with schools and local authorities. I want to hear their views and opinions on the matter. I would like the Government to ask for those opinions, take that information away and then come back and propose a way forward. That could include some of the provisions on how we address issues around cycling, too. There is still, clearly, an issue around enforcement in relation to people who park in cycle lanes and around the way people park outside schools. The sensible thing to do would be to take my approach, which is to ask the Government to consult and then come back to Parliament with a plan. I hope that members will support that.
17:30Michael Matheson
Amendment 160, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeks to make parking in a mandatory cycle lane a criminal offence, enforceable by the police. There are technical difficulties with the amendment that could make it difficult to enforce but, even if those were resolved, the Scottish Government would strongly oppose the amendment for several reasons.
First, the creation of a new criminal offence is at odds with the Scottish Government policy of decriminalising parking offences. The amendment seeks to create a new offence, enforceable by the police only, which is directly in contradiction with the focus on decriminalising parking enforcement.
Secondly, there are mandatory cycle lanes where loading is required at certain times of the day for access to shops and so on. A blanket prohibition on parking without exceptions for waiting or loading could have a severe impact on the operation of businesses along that route.
Thirdly, there would be nothing to stop a local authority introducing a mandatory cycle lane on any residential street without any form of consultation with the residents. Indeed, it could be seen by local authorities as a way of introducing parking restrictions without any need for a TRO.
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
Will the member take an intervention?
Michael Matheson
I will give way to Mr Harvie, if he will smile.
Patrick Harvie
I am grateful to the member for giving way.
If the member is asking the chamber to accept that amendment 160 is simply the wrong way of achieving the aim, why has he not come forward with what he regards as the right way of achieving what is a clearly needed change in the way in which our cycle lanes are managed? This is a problem that people deal with every day throughout Scotland.
Michael Matheson
I am grateful for the fact that Mr Harvie smiled, and I assure him that I am about to set out how I will seek to address the issue.
As I pointed out at stage 2 when Mr Smyth attempted to address parking on cycle tracks, there is legislation in place to enable local authorities to regulate parking in cycle lanes, either by making the stretch of road a cycle track or by making a TRO to restrict parking. Creating even more legislation without considering the implications for all would not be helpful. However, I would like to undertake to include mandatory cycle lanes within the review of the TRO process that I have previously committed to and which will be undertaken in order to find a way to address these issues more effectively and do so through proper consultation.
Amendment 161, in the name of Jamie Greene, requires the Scottish ministers to hold a consultation with each local authority and each school in Scotland. I am afraid that the provision is vague about the scope or timescale of the consultation and does not suggest any particular matters that should be considered other than that of parking in the vicinity of a school.
Mr Greene put forward amendments in this area at stage 2, and I made a commitment to write to all local authorities that have DPE to remind them what powers they have and what they can do to enforce parking at or near schools. Policy officials also met Mr Greene after stage 2 and pointed out that many of the issues that he is looking to resolve are indeed already within the powers of local authorities. I therefore intend to pursue the issue with local authorities, to highlight and clarify the powers that they already have and to make them aware of the steps that have been taken in places such as Edinburgh and Glasgow under the current powers.
Given those two commitments, I urge members to reject amendments 160 and 161.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 160, in my name, aims to fix a problem that is causing significant problems for cyclists. It has been highlighted to the Government time and again, but the Government has failed to take action on it. Local government budgets are under huge pressure at the moment, and it is simply unfair to expect local authorities to undertake a full TRO process on every mandatory cycle lane in their area just to be able to enforce something that is already banned, given that recent regulations told councils that they did not need TROs when they set up those mandatory cycle lanes.
Not agreeing to my amendment will mean that councils will simply reduce the overall number of mandatory cycle lanes that they introduce. Is that what we want to see? Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to review the TRO process, it is no reason to kick the issue into the long grass, especially when we have no idea when that might happen and what the eventual outcome will mean in this context. We have an opportunity to address the anomaly, and we should take it.
I have to say that I provided the wording of the amendment to the cabinet secretary’s office and gave him an opportunity to suggest changes to it or raise any specific issues before I lodged it. However, he failed to take the opportunity to do that.
Parking in cycle lanes is a major hazard for cyclists. If the existing ban on parking in cycle lanes cannot be enforced, it is utterly meaningless. Given the clear and urgent need to increase the rates of cycling in Scotland, we should be doing all that we can to ensure that it is a safe and practical option for people to use, not making it more difficult.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 160 disagreed to.
Amendment 161 not moved.
The Presiding Officer
Before we turn to group 20, which is the beginning of the debate on the workplace parking levy, I am minded to have a short suspension of seven and a half minutes. We will resume at 17:45.
17:37 Meeting suspended.17:50 On resuming—
Section 58A—Workplace parking licensing schemes
The Presiding Officer
Group 20 is on workplace parking levy: process. Amendment 86, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, is grouped with amendments 89, 162 to 165, 91, 110 and 127.
Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
I know that there will be lots of discussions about the workplace parking levy, but I will focus on amendment 86, which is about the islands.
Amendment 86 is a fairly straightforward amendment, which will require that, if a local authority introduces a workplace parking levy scheme that extends to an island community, an island communities impact assessment will be conducted. That will give local authorities clear directions and a consistent island approach. At the moment, such impact assessments must be conducted only when a policy, strategy or service is, in the local authority’s opinion, likely to have an effect on an island community that is significantly different from its effect on other communities.
Amendment 86 will ensure that the requirement for impact assessments is applied uniformly and will uphold the spirit of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. That will be particularly important in those council areas that contain island and mainland communities, where there is a greater risk of specific island needs being ignored.
There are many cases where island transport needs differ from those on the mainland. As Strathclyde Partnership for Transport stated,
“As is well established, Scotland is a country of contrasts and the ‘one size fits all’ approach is rarely fit for purpose in tackling transport issues. Therefore, while WPL may be considered appropriate in some places (e.g. large urban areas), it will likely not be an option for others (e.g. remote rural areas / islands).”
The managing director of Loganair, which provides lifeline air links to many of our island communities, has called the proposed levy “impractical and unreasonable” for its staff. Their situation is most pronounced at island airports, where out-of-hours public transport links are often non-existent.
Although amendment 86 will not prevent a workplace parking levy from being introduced in an island community, it will ensure that due consideration is given to local circumstances and that problems such as poor public transport links can be fully taken into account. There are already burdens on workers in the islands. Transport from island to island already imposes an additional cost on commuters. Further additional costs might create more barriers to attracting people to live and work in our islands. Recruitment is a considerable issue for many businesses in the islands, including Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.
John Finnie
I am listening intently to what the member is saying, but does he not trust the three island local authorities or, indeed, the mainland authorities that have islands to take all those factors on board when determining whether to introduce such a scheme in the first place?
Jamie Halcro Johnston
We are making sure that they have to do that, which is entirely reasonable.
Amendment 86 will ensure that island needs are actively reflected in any policy changes in this area.
The Scottish Conservatives will also support amendment 89, in the name of Colin Smyth, which requires an additional level of approval for workplace parking levy schemes. My colleagues Dean Lockhart and Michelle Ballantyne will speak to amendments 162 and 163, and 164 and 165, respectively.
I will also address the Government’s amendments. Amendment 91 provides for a reporter to examine proposals to make, amend or revoke a workplace parking licensing scheme. That is not a particularly helpful approach and it builds up the administrative structure around the levy. We will oppose the amendment.
I move amendment 86.
Colin Smyth
Amendment 89 would require ministers to approve workplace parking levy schemes before they can be brought in. That would provide an additional layer of oversight to the process. Having two layers of scrutiny is generally considered good practice, which I presume is why ministers have that and other powers in relation to the creation of low-emission zones. I have difficulty in understanding why the bill introduces Government sign-off for low-emission zones but the Government does not want sign-off for a workplace parking levy. It seems that the Scottish Government simply wants to wash its hands of an unpopular policy, pass the buck and duck its responsibility.
I am happy to support the rest of the amendments in the group, in particular those that call for more comprehensive analysis by local authorities of the impact of the levy on communities.
Dean Lockhart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Amendments 162 and 163 seek to ensure that adequate assessments are undertaken before a workplace levy can be introduced.
Amendment 162 requires a local authority to carry out an assessment of the impact that the levy may have on small and medium-sized enterprises in its area. In its submission to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland highlighted the need for local authorities to carry out proper consultation and impact assessments before the introduction of individual schemes. It said:
“We believe this section ... needs to place more detailed requirements upon local authorities in relation to a specific business impact assessment, including a small business assessment.”
The amendment would place on a statutory footing a requirement to assess the likely impact on SMEs. That could easily be done through consultation with small business representative groups or directly with small businesses in the local area.
Amendment 163 takes the principle of an impact assessment one step further by also requiring an assessment of the potential impact on employment levels in the local authority area. The assessment would evaluate whether the introduction of a workplace parking levy could lead to a decline in employment in the local authority area, which is a potential outcome if workers cannot afford to pay the levy and there are insufficient public transport links. If the workplace parking levy were shown to have a detrimental impact on employment levels or the business of small firms, the consequences for the community and the local economy could be far reaching and long lasting.
Local authorities should therefore be required to undertake those assessments and consider the findings before making a decision on whether to proceed with an individual scheme. I urge members to support small businesses in their constituencies and to support those amendments.
Michelle Ballantyne (South Scotland) (Con)
Sadly, it is well documented that the job market is more difficult for people with disabilities. Research shows that disabled applicants have to apply for 60 per cent more jobs on average than their counterparts, and a disabled person in Scotland is still twice as likely to be unemployed and actively seeking work as a non-disabled person.
The charity Scope estimates that having a disability costs a person an average of £583 per month. Furthermore, many disabilities mean that public transport may be far more stressful, or even impossible, for many people who would otherwise drive to work. Amendment 164 asks that local authorities specifically set out the impact that the workplace parking levy would have on disabled people who have either “physical or mental impairment”. It is important, because a focus on those people, rather than looking at persons “likely to be affected”, would require the local authority to assess what transport for disabled people is available in the area and how the levy would affect them.
Amendment 165 looks at low-pay and low-income households and again asks for a specific assessment of how the levy would affect those households. A Scottish Government report earlier this year identified that, of the working age population living in relative poverty, 59 per cent live in working households. The report says that the two main drivers of in-work poverty are low pay and low intensity, which covers many of the jobs that are offered by local authorities such as janitorial and administration staff and apprentices. It is entirely appropriate that any local authority wishing to implement a parking levy should check how the measures would impact on such groups. I urge the chamber to support those amendments.
Michael Matheson
Amendment 91, in my name, builds on John Finnie’s stage 2 amendment that gave the Scottish ministers and local authorities the power to cause a local inquiry to be held into a proposed workplace parking licensing scheme. On reflection, I am concerned that that approach might be too restrictive.
18:00Therefore, amendment 91 provides flexibility, allowing for the examination of representations to be tailored and proportionate to the needs and circumstances of individual proposals. It will do so by allowing the Scottish ministers and local authorities to appoint a reporter who will decide whether to consider representations in writing, at a hearing, at a public inquiry or in some other way. The Scottish ministers will have the power to deal with the procedural aspects of those examinations. That is consistent with amendment 52, in my name, on low-emission zones, which was already debated. Amendment 91 retains the key principles of John Finnie’s stage 2 amendment, while making for a more responsive and flexible approach.
Amendment 110 allows the Scottish ministers to specify in regulations the manner in which local authority accounts in relation to workplace parking licensing schemes must be published, bringing that into line with section 22 on low-emission zones.
Amendment 127 changes from negative to affirmative the parliamentary procedure for regulations under section 58B(5), which can vary the circumstances in which a workplace parking place is provided. That is in line with the view of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.
I ask members to support my amendments in the group.
Amendment 86, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, is unnecessary. Local authorities proposing a workplace parking licensing scheme will have to prepare and publish an assessment of the impacts of the proposal, and an island communities impact assessment is already required to be carried out in appropriate circumstances under the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.
Amendment 89, in the name of Colin Smyth, revisits an argument from stage 2, as it would require that the Scottish ministers sign off on each proposed scheme. The workplace parking licensing scheme is built on principles of localism and is underpinned by consultation and impact assessment requirements. As a result, I cannot support amendment 89.
Amendments 162 to 165 seek to extend the mandatory coverage of impact assessments in respect of a number of named groups. Given that there is an existing requirement to assess the likely effects on persons who might have to pay charges, those amendments are unnecessary.
I urge the other members with amendments in the group not to move them.
Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
I speak in support of Dean Lockhart’s amendments regarding the car park tax, which will penalise rural communities that do not have the luxury of good public transport. Legislating for a workplace parking levy without first addressing poor public transport in Scotland—crucially, in the north-east—risks undermining income and job opportunities for my constituents and people in the wider region.
There is a risk that a tax imposed by Aberdeen City Council would impact directly on those who have no option but to work in the city and live in Aberdeenshire. That inequity is compounded by the fact that the revenue from the tax would not benefit those who paid it, and that those who set it would not be electorally accountable to those who paid it. The injustice of taxation without representation goes against the principles of our democracy.
Our rural communities should not be penalised by the car park tax, so I urge members to support amendments 162 and 163.
Jamie Halcro Johnston
I will be brief, as I think that we will discuss the issue a little bit more. At the moment, whether an island communities impact assessment should be done is a matter for the local authority’s opinion, so amendment 86 would give some reassurance to those living in the islands that the impact of a workplace parking levy on communities will be fully assessed by councils before any decisions are made.
I hope that members will support amendment 86.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 54, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 86 disagreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Group 21 is on the workplace parking levy. Amendment 1, in the name of Neil Bibby, is grouped with amendments 2 to 21 and 134. I call Neil Bibby to move amendment 1 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.
Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
The purpose of my amendments is to remove provisions for a workplace parking levy from the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Members should be in no doubt that the levy is a regressive tax on workers that will hit the lowest paid hardest. It is not consequence free, it is not a solution to climate change and, far from incentivising modal shift, it penalises those for whom modal shift is not an option. It is not an option, because, for many working people, public transport in Scotland is not good enough.
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention?
Neil Bibby
I would like to make some progress first.
Nottingham is the only place in the UK to have introduced the levy. In written evidence to this Parliament, the public sector union Unison said that, in Nottingham, its members found that
“increases to the workplace parking levy were widely passed on, had hit members hard and were not applied in a fair way.”
The Scottish Trades Union Congress says:
“The levy is also a flat tax which takes no account of affordability or fairness and therefore has a disproportionately negative impact on those with the lowest incomes.”
The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—ASLEF—the train drivers’ union, whose members provide the services that make modal shift possible, says that it is an “outrageous” tax on
“people for turning up to work”.
As has been mentioned, Loganair, Scotland’s only airline, has raised its concerns about it. The Scottish Wholesale Association says:
“Early and late shift patterns are not covered by public transport timetables. Staff starting at 5am have no alternative but to drive to work.”
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention at that point?
Neil Bibby
I will take the intervention if Mr Finnie can explain why he believes that working people in his region should have to pay to go to their work, when his motoring expenses are covered by the taxpayer.
John Finnie
I did not catch the member’s last point. I was intervening on him. If he repeats the point, I am happy—
The Presiding Officer
Mr Finnie, please ask your question.
John Finnie
If there are all those downsides to the workplace car parking levy, would Mr Bibby explain why Labour-controlled Nottingham City Council introduced it and why it was in the manifestos of Edinburgh and Glasgow city Labour parties?
Neil Bibby
John Finnie did not take up my point about his motoring expenses. He has claimed £1,700 from the taxpayer.
The workplace parking levy in Nottingham was not introduced in isolation. The council invested in public transport before it introduced that levy. There is no guarantee that the Scottish National Party will use the levy to invest in transport.
No economic impact analysis has been conducted, and nothing that the Government has said convinces me that it has seriously considered the unintended consequences of the tax. Do not take my word for it—listen to the Educational Institute of Scotland. It believes that the levy poses a risk to “recruitment and retention” in the teaching profession. It is not the only profession that is worried. The Scottish Association of Social Work believes that it is wrong to place
“a charge on social workers to park at work, after using their cars to carry out essential work–much of this in emergency situations”.
If the purpose of this go-to-work tax is to secure modal shift away from cars towards public transport, viable public transport options must be available to commuters. However, the reality for Scotland’s commuters is that we have a joke of a rail service, and since the Scottish National Party came to power the number of bus passenger journeys has plummeted by 100 million and one fifth of all bus routes have been stripped out of the bus network. Public transport is broken under this Government and it needs to be fundamentally transformed before we consider the workplace parking levy.
What about the views of the people? When Survation polled the Scottish public on attitudes to the workplace parking levy, it found that the people of Scotland opposed it. The Scottish Government has been unable to demonstrate any public support for the policy and, if we are talking about manifestos, the SNP Government made no reference at all to a workplace parking levy in its manifesto for the last election to this Parliament.
The SNP is not listening. It is not listening to the trade unions, the business community or the people of Scotland. The proposal has served no purpose other than to give the Scottish Green Party a reason to vote for an SNP budget, which has slashed core funding for the very councils that the Government says the levy is supposed to support. We cannot agree to the proposal for a workplace parking levy; we believe that it should be rejected and erased from the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
I move amendment 1.
Michael Matheson
I was disappointed that, on the very day that we debated the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, Neil Bibby lodged an amendment to remove the provisions on workplace parking from the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I am conscious that there is some confusion and concern within the Labour Party about the position that it has taken on the issue.
We know that Labour-controlled Nottingham City Council was the first to introduce a workplace parking levy in England. We also now know that Labour-controlled Birmingham City Council is consulting on introducing a levy and that Labour-controlled Oxford City Council is discussing the introduction of such a levy. It is not just me who is uncomfortable with the matter. I am conscious that members of Labour’s shadow cabinet are uncomfortable with the issue, as we know from Claudia Beamish, who stated that she was “uncomfortable” with the position that her party holds. There are people in the Labour Party who believe that it is the right type of approach to take. For example, Edinburgh council’s Labour leader, Cammy Day, said:
“This is not about taxing people, it’s about saying we need to discourage the use of petrol and diesel cars coming into the city, it’s about encouraging people to use bikes and public transport.”
The one thing that is consistent is Labour’s inconsistency on workplace parking levies.
Neil Bibby
Will the member take an intervention?
Michael Matheson
Mr Bibby is no doubt about to explain the Labour Party’s hypocrisy on the issue.
Neil Bibby
I do not know whether the minister has realised that we are not in Birmingham, Oxford or Nottingham, but in Scotland. [Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer
Order, please.
Neil Bibby
If the minister is so concerned about showing leadership on climate change and about modal shift, will he lead by example and be modally shifting himself out of his ministerial car to get to work every day?
Michael Matheson
I cannot vouch for Neil Bibby’s ability on geography, but the last time that I checked we were in Edinburgh. I can also say that the workplace parking levy was in the Labour Party’s manifesto for the council elections here. And the last time that I checked, Glasgow was also in Scotland.
The amendments that John Finnie introduced at stage 2 bring in a modest discretionary power for local authorities to introduce such a scheme. It is a power, not a duty. There is a high degree of local decision making in how a scheme is set up, with local authorities having wide powers to shape a scheme to meet local needs. There are detailed requirements to carry out impact assessments and to consult widely. Funds raised can be used only on activities to promote the objectives of local transport strategies and to meet the costs of those schemes. There is not one single solution to the climate emergency that we face. There needs to be a range of tools in the boxes of policy makers in order to address the issue.
18:15Just two weeks ago, individuals, even some on the Labour benches, were lecturing us about the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, telling us that we must take bold, urgent action to tackle climate change. Well, let us see what Labour members mean by that today, and let us see whether they are prepared to take some of the bold, urgent action that is necessary. As ever when it comes to the Labour Party, it is just empty rhetoric, with no commitment to deliver on it. I urge members to oppose Neil Bibby’s amendments.
The final amendment in the group, amendment 134 in my name, is a minor technical amendment to the long title of the bill to reflect that it now includes a provision on workplace parking licensing schemes. I urge members to support that amendment.
Mike Rumbles
I congratulate Neil Bibby on being fleet of foot and much quicker than me in getting his amendments accepted at the chamber desk. I was right behind him, and I am in absolute agreement that his amendments should be agreed to, to remove the 20 sections concerned from the bill.
We have improved the bill today, and we did so at stage 2, with councils being able to run their own bus companies—and not just on unprofitable routes—and by banning pavement parking. I well remember the member’s bill of my colleague Ross Finnie, and here we are. I am really pleased that we have supported all those measures.
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention?
Mike Rumbles
Let me get moving first.
In our view from the Liberal Democrat benches, the 20 sections on workplace parking are being introduced contrary to the evidence that has been produced at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
We have heard that Nottingham is the only place where that measure has been taken. All the local authorities throughout England have had the power for years. It might come as a surprise to the cabinet secretary that Birmingham is consulting on the measure, but it should not be a surprise to members of the committee, as we have known that Birmingham and other authorities have been consulting on it for a very long time—but they have still not moved forward with it.
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention now?
Mike Rumbles
Just let me make some progress.
It is not just that Nottingham is the only place that has taken the measure. Why is it the only place that has done it? The evidence that we received was quite clear: that the administration in Nottingham has invested massively in public transport, because it was interested in behavioural change. Of the 20 sections of the bill that we are discussing, none is about behavioural change.
John Finnie
I am grateful to Mr Rumbles for taking an intervention.
Why, therefore, does the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities want the measure?
Mike Rumbles
It is funny that the member asks why COSLA would like the money. In our view, COSLA has been starved of funds by the Scottish Government through the budget that Mr Finnie supported. Mr Finnie should know the answer to his question very well.
I will return to the facts about Nottingham. That authority has invested a huge amount, and it has achieved behavioural change. However—and this may come as a surprise to members—it has not reduced congestion and has not reduced the problems that vehicles have been causing in Nottingham. Has that come as a surprise? There is silence in the chamber—apart from—
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Mike Rumbles
Yes, of course I will.
John Mason
Would the member not accept that the evidence at committee was that the increase in congestion was less in Nottingham than elsewhere?
Mike Rumbles
I will accept—and I was just about to come on to this before Mr Mason’s intervention—that the witnesses told us that it was impossible to measure the comparisons. They did not know. What they could measure was whether congestion had decreased or increased, and they measured the increase. The measure has not succeeded in its aim of reducing congestion.
Members need to be aware of the other advice that was given to the committee, if they are not aware of it already. The clear advice to us was that, for environmental reasons, whatever we do, we should not impose LEZs and the workplace parking levy at the same time. That was clear evidence from the witnesses from Nottingham. I am surprised that we are now going with both of them, against the advice of the people who gave us evidence.
The bill should be all about engaging behavioural change, which those 20 sections will not create. In the debate on previous amendments I was taken by the contribution of Alexander Burnett, who represents the same area that I do. I was very impressed by what he had to say. [Interruption.] I have just heard the cry, “I bet you are.” To that, I say that I was impressed—I will give praise where it is due. Mr Burnett represents the people of Aberdeenshire West; I represent the same people, but at regional level. He made the point that if Aberdeen City Council were to adopt the workplace parking levy—under whichever administration that might be—it would hit hard the very many people who travel into the city. Despite the best efforts of Aberdeenshire Council, we in the region recognise that the public transport infrastructure to achieve behavioural change is not there—so what will happen? People’s behaviour will not change; all that the levy will do is raise funds for Aberdeen City Council, which it needs because, as we all know, it is the local authority that is worst supported by central funding in this country. Therefore it is quite obvious that it might be tempted to go down the route of adopting the levy. However, that would hit the people whom I represent—
Mark McDonald (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Will Mr Rumbles advise what the council leaders had to say about their intentions on the workplace parking levy when Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council set their budgets recently?
Mike Rumbles
I would be surprised if all our councils in Aberdeenshire had not asked for more arrows for their quivers, because that is what COSLA also does. [Interruption.] I am sorry to say so again, but I reiterate that in the chamber our job is to ensure that we pass laws that are right for the entire country. That is what I am trying to do on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
As I have said, there is real irony around those 20 sections. As we all know—and as Neil Bibby said—the only reason that those 20 new sections are in the bill is the budget deal that the Scottish Greens made with the Scottish National Party. I congratulate the Greens, who have six members in the Scottish Parliament—
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work (Derek Mackay)
They do a better job than you.
Mike Rumbles
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work has just said, from a sedentary position, that the Greens do a better job than the Scottish Liberal Democrats. I point out that we engaged, while SNP members were not interested because they had the Greens’ votes.
I give credit where it is due, but I also criticise where it is due. I give credit to the Greens for achieving the deal. However, I find it amazing, because the SNP Administration did not have to do it—that is what surprises me. I am absolutely certain that the Greens would have abstained, so the SNP Government has landed itself with a hugely unpopular form of taxation—it has to be the worst of all in the popularity stakes.
Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)
I am truly interested to learn what the Liberal Democrat member will do about the climate emergency—or is his party’s current stance simply all about wooing the Conservatives?
Mike Rumbles
As far as I remember, Scottish Liberal Democrats voted for the bill, whereas the Greens did not. [Interruption.] We will live with that one.
Presiding Officer, I know that time is short, so I will bring my remarks to a close. As I have said, it is rather ironic that the smart SNP Government has landed itself—
Derek Mackay
Thank you.
Mike Rumbles
I must point out to some members that in saying “smart” I was being ironic. The smart SNP Government and the First Minister have landed themselves with something that they did not need to do and that will not achieve behavioural change. I believe in achieving such change, but I also believe in doing it in the right way.
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
I support amendments 1 to 21, in the name of Neil Bibby.
As is the case with any proposed legislation, we need to fully think through the consequences of our actions. In this case, who will bear the cost of the workplace parking levy? It will undoubtedly be either employers or employees. Based on the charge that was levied by Nottingham City Council, the charge here is likely to be of the order of £400 per year for each space. If the charge is borne by employees, we can safely assume that those at senior management level are likely to have that cost rolled into their remuneration package, but the bulk of the workforce—those who are perhaps less well paid—could face that additional £400 cost if they want to park at work. That, quite simply, is a tax on employment.
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Jackie Baillie
In a second.
If the cost is borne by the employer, depending on the volume of spaces available that could mean thousands of pounds of extra costs. I made a freedom of information request to the Government and all its agencies. Between them, they have 37,082 parking spaces; I confess that I have not counted them all personally. Of that number, 10,764 are exclusively for staff, but the remaining spaces could also be used by staff. If we take the smallest possible figure, the lowest possible cost to the Government and its agencies would be £5 million a year. That is the minimum amount that would not be spent on a range of public services, including on transport.
The cost could be significant for employees and employers. The money that local government would gain is not hypothecated to transport; it could be used to shore up other services.
I would find the levy to be much more acceptable if public transport was halfway decent. I could then say to people in my area that the tax is a good thing and that they could get public transport instead, and I would encourage that modal shift. However, in my area the bus service has been stripped away and the train service is so bad—there are delays, cancellations, stop-skipping and short-form trains—that people have shifted back to their cars.
John Mason
Does the member at least accept that in Glasgow and Edinburgh’s city centres, where congestion is a problem, the public transport is very good and it is not the ordinary workers who get a parking place but the top people?
Jackie Baillie
I think that John Mason needs to get out more, because I can tell him that the people in my constituency who require to commute do not use the train or bus services, because they are unreliable and they make them late for work; those people get into trouble at work as a consequence.
I highlight to SNP members that local government is cash strapped. The SNP Government, since it came to power, has stripped away £1.5 billion from local government. No wonder local government will grab every opportunity to raise income in order to protect services.
What about people who live in rural areas where public transport is not good? What about shift workers, when public transport simply does not run at night time? I want us to make progress on climate change. I want there to be improvements in public transport, but we need to make those improvements first before imposing a workplace parking levy, which is a flat-rate regressive tax that will hit workers hard. If the Government was honest about it, the levy has more to do with a backroom budget deal with the Greens than it has to do with high principle.
Murdo Fraser
I speak in support of Neil Bibby’s amendments 1 to 21, all of which seek to remove references to the workplace parking levy.
The car parking tax emerged from the budget deal between the SNP and the Greens. Although it looks like a Green provision, it now appears that the idea was first put on the table by the SNP’s finance secretary. The simple fact is that the car parking tax is a bad idea, because it is a regressive tax, which will likely cost up to £500 a year and will hit the lowest-paid workers the hardest.
The measure simply has not been thought through. There was no economic analysis of the new tax, and there was no consultation with any businesses, other organisations or stakeholders before it was proposed. We have very little detail about how the tax would work in practice—the Federation of Small Businesses has described that as “alarming”.
Nottingham City Council introduced a car parking tax at a cost of £400 a year. It is, of course, up to employers whether they pass on the tax to employees. If they do, the charge is likely to be subject to VAT, lifting it up to nearly £500. Councillor Adam McVey, the SNP leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, has already said that he hopes that businesses would pass on that cost to staff. He hopes that that would be the case. Other SNP councils, including Glasgow and Dundee, have expressed interest in implementing it.
The tax would hit the poorest hardest. It is a regressive tax, which would be payable at a flat rate. For those on low wages, whether they are night-shift security workers or those who work in retail, it would represent a substantial hit to their pockets. Those are individuals who, perhaps because of shift patterns, might not have a safe, reliable and affordable public transport alternative, so they have no option but to use their cars; they cannot use a bus or a train to get to work. Those are the very people whom the SNP is planning to hit in their pockets.
18:30We have heard from the SNP that this is about localism—that it is about giving a new power to local authorities. Who could object to that? However, that argument is fatally undermined by the fact that the scope of the tax has already been restricted by the Scottish Government, because it has deliberately removed NHS workers from that scope—NHS workers, but not workers in other sectors or indeed workers in other parts of the public services or low-paid workers in the private sector.
Councils have not been given discretion to set up the tax as they see fit; their hands have been tied by the Scottish Government. This is nothing to do with localism. We are left with a tax from which NHS workers might be exempt, but which schoolteachers will pay, or for that matter teaching assistants, school support staff and those working in school catering, along with emergency services workers, the police, and those in low-paid private sector jobs, whether in retail, the care sector or in hospitality; they will all be asked to pay.
Every SNP member who votes against these amendments is voting to penalise those people. Anything that they say in the future about social justice or about helping the low paid will ring hollow if they vote against these amendments.
Colin Smyth
I support amendments 1 to 21, which would remove the workplace parking levy from the bill entirely. The workplace parking levy is unpopular; it is regressive; and it was added to the bill only because of a budget deal, which shows that it is more about raising revenue than about reducing emissions. It is a desperate attempt to put a sticking plaster over the gaping wound in local council budgets that has been caused by the Government’s cuts.
If the SNP really believes its own rhetoric on the levy—if it really thinks that this is such a good idea—why did it not include the measure in its transport bill in the first place? Did Humza Yousaf, Michael Matheson’s predecessor, simply forget to include the measure? Why, when the bill was debated at stage 1, did the SNP MSPs label the measure as unfair when now, suddenly, they have done a U-turn and are backing it? The SNP should be honest—this was all about votes for its budget and ordinary workers will pay the price for that deal.
We need to tackle transport-related emissions and encourage a modal shift towards greener modes of transport, but the workplace parking levy will not achieve that. Low-emission zones will prevent polluting vehicles from being used in those zones, but a workplace parking levy will simply allow those who can afford it to continue to use those vehicles.
Not one person—not one—who gave evidence on the levy to the REC Committee believed that it would be as effective as LEZs in tackling air pollution and reducing emissions. The levy is regressive; it creates a situation in which a company’s chief executive is likely to pay the same as the company cleaner. It is simply unfair. Many of my constituents travel for work from rural areas with poor transport links to cities; under this scheme, they will pay hundreds of pounds to their neighbouring councils, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, but not a single penny will be spent on improving public transport in the council area where they live. That is why Labour members will stand up for our constituents and vote to remove this unworkable, unwanted, unfair tax on ordinary workers.
Mark McDonald
I have listened carefully to the debate on the issue and I admit to being slightly confused by the arguments that are being deployed. On the one hand, we are told that this is a regressive tax that will hit workers; on the other hand, we are told that councils will not implement the measure because councils in England have not implemented it. On the one hand, we are told that councils are desperate for this power—a point that Mr Rumbles made—and on the other hand, we are told that they will not use it if they are given it.
This is not about whether the workplace parking levy will be introduced in every council area in Scotland; it is about whether every council area in Scotland should have the opportunity and ability to introduce that levy, should it tally with their local circumstances.
I asked Mr Rumbles directly about the positions of Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council on this issue when they set their budgets. He obviously did not know, because he said that councils would want to have the power and would want to use it in order to plug the holes in their budgets. He said that Aberdeen City Council would be desperate for the power on the basis that it is one of the lowest-funded authorities in Scotland. However, at the budget meeting, the council leader Douglas Lumsden said that, in his view, the parking levy was a non-starter. Therefore, at a local level, Aberdeen City Council is taking a decision not to introduce the workplace parking levy.
Mr Rumbles says that all councils will want to introduce a levy to plug holes in their budgets, but that is not borne out in what councils are saying, so that is not a legitimate argument.
Mike Rumbles
Mr McDonald is talking about current council administrations, but we are putting down legislation and laying the law of the land for the future. Any administration, particularly one in the city of Aberdeen, could well be tempted to use the power. As we have heard, many of my constituents in Aberdeenshire would be hit hard by that. Mr McDonald’s constituents in the centre of Aberdeen might not necessarily be hit, but my constituents who live in Aberdeenshire would be affected. That is my point.
Mark McDonald
My constituents do not live in the centre of Aberdeen; they live in the suburbs of Aberdeen, and many of them have to travel to work in the centre of Aberdeen and in Aberdeenshire.
It is interesting that Mr Rumbles says that future administrations might decide to introduce a levy. I do not believe that we should give powers only when we agree with what the people who get the powers will do with them. I do not believe that, because an administration may change colour in the future, we should not give the powers in case that future administration takes a decision that we do not like. That is not how democracy or the principle of devolution or empowerment should work, but it is telling that that appears to be how the Liberal Democrats view the principle of empowerment. The Liberal Democrats think that councils can have powers only if they are used in the manner that we agree with, or if councils are of a political persuasion that means that we would agree with the method with which they would use those powers.
Mike Rumbles
Will the member take another intervention?
Mark McDonald
I have taken one intervention from Mr Rumbles, which is probably enough.
Members have spoken about how unpopular the measures are. In considering how to vote on amendments, I am often guided by correspondence from my constituents and what they ask me to do. In relation to the workplace parking levy, which is supposedly the least popular piece of legislation or taxation ever introduced, the amount of correspondence that I have received asking me to vote specifically on the amendments has totalled zero—I have had no letters, emails or phone calls to my office. The idea that the issue is somehow the talk of the steamie is simply not borne out in the correspondence that my constituents have sent to me in relation to how I vote today.
I will vote to empower local councils to take decisions that meet their local circumstances. I will reject the amendments in the name of Neil Bibby in order to ensure that the provisions on the levy remain part of the bill.
Neil Bibby
Too often, politics seems to exist in a bubble, isolated and out of touch with the real concerns of working people. On days like this, we can see why. The idea that there is a public transport system in place in Scotland that meets the needs of Scotland’s workers is laughable, and the idea that the levy will not disadvantage workers on modest incomes is an absurdity. For those who experience transport poverty and who put themselves into debt to own a car because public transport is not good enough, the levy will make it more expensive to get to work.
Members such as John Mason have said that opposition to the levy is elitist. He should tell that to the workers at Tennent’s in Duke Street and other workplaces in Glasgow. If he goes to the council schemes in his city or in my region, he will find plenty of cars—sometimes they are owned by people who choose to commute by car, but often they are owned by people who have no choice but to commute by car. If people have to drive to work to support their family, car ownership is not a choice; it is a necessity. They are not the elite. They are the working people and sometimes the working poor of this country and they are being ignored by SNP and Green politicians who collectively claimed £300,000 in public money to cover their motoring expenses in the first two years of this session of Parliament alone. Those people are being ignored by Michael Matheson, who claimed £2,000 in motoring expenses in 2018-19. They are being ignored by ministers who do not use public transport and who have and will continue to have the luxury of being chauffeur-driven to their work.
A number of amendments have been lodged that would create exemptions to the levy, but the proposal is beyond mitigation. It would be better to remove the levy entirely and shift our focus to measures that we know will work. This debate is not the test of the Parliament’s will to act on climate change, and the Greens know it, as does everybody else. The test of our will to act is whether we embrace a green new deal, a green industrial revolution and a low-carbon future. Nor is the debate a test of whether the Parliament will fund councils fairly, and the SNP knows that. That will be tested at budget time, when the Parliament can reverse the cuts to Scotland’s councils that have been imposed by the SNP Government and the Green Party.
The workplace parking levy proposal is nothing more than a political fix to pass a budget. It is a fix that will hit low-paid workers, and Scottish Labour cannot support it. We believe in making it cheaper and easier to get to work—that was in the manifesto that we stood on. We reject this regressive tax on Scotland’s workers. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I press amendment 1.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 54, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Members might have noticed that we are past the agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish. For your information, we are running exactly 25 minutes behind schedule. I ask the business managers to consult my colleagues on the business team about how we might want to handle the rest of this evening’s business. I used my powers under rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate on group 21 to continue.
Section 58B—Workplace parking places
The Presiding Officer
Group 22 is called “Workplace parking levy: application and exemptions”. Amendment 87, in the name of Mike Rumbles, is grouped with amendments 88, 30, 23 to 27, 31 to 35, 94 to 99, 166, 167, 100 to 108, 168, 169, 36, 170, 28, 29 and 37.
Mike Rumbles
It is quite obvious that the workplace parking levy will remain in the bill, as a result of the vote on amendment 1. I thought that that might be the case, so I lodged amendments 87 and 88, the purpose of which is to take business customers out of the workplace parking levy.
I want to do that for several reasons. First, we must go back to the purpose of the bill, which is, as I understand it, to promote behaviour change. We were told that the levy would not apply to customers of businesses. However, section 58B says:
“For the purposes of this Part, a workplace parking place is provided at any premises at any time if a parking place provided at the premises is at that time occupied by a motor vehicle used ... by a worker, agent, supplier, business customer or business visitor of a relevant person”.
Later in section 58B, “business customer” is defined. The section says that
“‘business customer’, in relation to a relevant person, means a client or customer”.
Regardless of what we heard in committee, the bill says that the workplace parking levy will apply to customers. Any business that provides a parking place that is subject to that local authority tax will have to pay for customers who turn up. That will not change behaviour; it will just give the business added costs.
Mark McDonald
Will the member take an intervention?
Mike Rumbles
I will in a moment.
There is another issue, which I want to explain, for wholesalers and businesses that attend other businesses, such as suppliers. I assume that hitting such businesses with the tax is inadvertent. If it is not, it is clear that the purpose of the workplace parking levy is to raise funds rather than to promote behaviour change, although we are told that it is about behaviour change. Suppliers will be hit by the tax if they have to deliver goods to other businesses—but they cannot do that in any other way; they cannot change that behaviour.
When we look at the matter that way, we see that the purpose of the bill cannot be behaviour change. It has to be something else, so what is it? It is about raising funds.
18:45I urge members to think about that whether they believe that the workplace parking levy is right or wrong. Rather than adding costs to businesses that are supplying customers, I am trying to make an adjustment that would put that right. We have spotted a problem. Business suppliers and customers approached me to lodge amendment 87. I was happy to do so because this is a real issue and I am trying to make the bill better.
I move amendment 87.
Annie Wells (Glasgow) (Con)
I will keep my remarks short in order to try to get some time back. I will speak to amendments 30 to 33, 36 and 37.
Amendments 31 to 33 seek to add to the places of work that should be exempt from the car park tax. I have chosen to focus on establishments that are responsible for provision of social care. Amendment 31 would exempt establishments that provide adult social care, amendment 32 would exempt those that provide adult health care and amendment 33 would exempt residential care establishments.
We must bear it in mind that Scotland has an ageing population and a growing requirement to provide adult social care. Therefore, we should not be putting up barriers that would hinder that provision.
In February of this year, Trisha Hall, who was then national director of the Scottish Association of Social Work, wrote to Derek Mackay and said:
“Public transport may be limited or simply non-existent, and there are many instances where we have to transport people who need or use our services. It is important that we are able to park outside our various workplaces and have immediate access to cars.”
Amendments 30, 36 and 37 are technical amendments.
I urge members to vote for my amendments.
The Presiding Officer
I call Liz Smith to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group.
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Amendment 23 is designed to exempt any and all car park spaces at Scottish educational institutions from the workplace parking levy. As defined within the schedules of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, that would include primary and secondary schools, and further and higher education institutions.
The reasons for such exemptions are very clear—£500 a year of a teacher’s or lecturer’s salary, or of that of a support member of staff, is a not inconsiderable sum for the many staff who do not live close to the school, college or university in which they work. As members well know, teachers’ and lecturers’ hours are often irregular and frequently involve working unsocial hours, and many teachers need to have a flexible commute and they need the facility to carry large bags, files and teaching resources, which is not always possible on public transport.
We have seen the very strong reaction to the proposals from the education sector, which is why I urge Parliament to support amendment 23.
The Presiding Officer
I call Liam Kerr to speak to amendment 24 and the other amendments in the group.
Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)
Amendments 24 to 27 seek to apply exemptions to the car park tax for our police officers, fire and rescue workers, criminal justice social workers and prison officers. The amendments are about protecting the people who protect us, and ensuring that we do not hit prison, police and fire officers with an extra tax of hundreds of pounds.
In July the Scottish Police Federation wrote to the cabinet secretary stating that the car park tax could risk the safety of police officers because it could force officers, who often start early and finish late, often in remote locations, into using public transport along fixed routes at fixed times, and it could increase the chances of their homes being targeted. They might also have to travel to work in uniform.
John Finnie
Will the member take an intervention?
Liam Kerr
I will not, as we are 20 minutes behind time.
I raised an issue concerning Peterhead prison yesterday in committee. It sits on a cliff at the top of Peterhead on a fairly lonely street which has lights and traffic. On the other side of the road there is a large expanse of unlit grass that is separated from the first house by a tall hedge. Street lights are some distance apart, and the southbound bus stop, from where the last Aberdeen bus leaves at quarter to ten, did not have a shelter the last time I waited at it.
That is not the sort of exposed and risky situation towards which we should be pushing our prison officers—especially in the context of the significant increases in assaults by prisoners against staff that Audit Scotland warned us about, and especially given that 80 per cent of the vacancies in the entire Scottish Prison Service are at Peterhead. Good luck changing that statistic by imposing a further tax.
Just to be clear, when I asked the chief executive of the SPS yesterday who would pay the charge, he said that the extra £1 million that is required to fund the service’s 2,411 spaces could not come from its budget, which Audit Scotland has reminded us has been slashed by 12.5 per cent in the past year.
Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Peterhead prison is in Aberdeenshire. Did Aberdeenshire Council vote to take on the car parking levy?
Liam Kerr
We are talking about the car park tax in the bill, so how could Aberdeenshire council have voted on it already? The member knows full well Aberdeenshire Council’s position on the matter.
The important point that people are trying to distract us from—I say to Gillian Martin that it bears restating—is that the extra £1 million that is required to fund the SPS’s 2,411 spaces could not come from a budget that Audit Scotland reminded us has been slashed by 12.5 per cent in the past year. Yesterday, the chief executive spoke about that; I will paraphrase his words, because the Official Report of the meeting is not yet online. He said that additional funds would have to come in from Government, or the SPS would have to find the resources elsewhere. To my mind, that means the employees.
John Finnie
Mr Kerr will recall that the chief executive also expressed concern about the additional employer pension contributions, and the fact that that will contribute to officers working on the front line until they are 68 years of age, because of something that has been imposed by Mr Kerr’s party’s UK Government.
Liam Kerr
There is nothing like staying relevant in a debate—and that was nothing like staying relevant in a debate.
I cannot believe that this Parliament, which has agreed to remove national health service workers from the scope of the car park tax, could think that our brave officers are in some way less deserving. These are people who put their health and wellbeing—and often that of their families—on the line every day, for each and every one of us. When they watch this at home, who will they see standing with them, and who will they see deserting them?
In closing, I will repeat the words of Calum Steele, of the Scottish Police Federation. He said:
“It is difficult to comprehend how any politician could support a proposal that increases risks to the safety and security of police officers. The reality of the threat against police officers is real and ought not to be ignored in such a cavalier manner.”
He also said:
“Who could have imagined the Scottish Parliament would have chosen the increasing of risk of harm to police officers and the public alike would be how it chose to commemorate its 20th anniversary?”
Who, indeed, Presiding Officer? Who, indeed?
The Presiding Officer
I call Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 34 and other amendments in the group.
Graham Simpson
I will speak to amendments 28, 29, 34, 35 and 94.
Amendment 28 would exempt shift workers and night workers from paying a levy. Amendment 34 would exempt any workplace with shift workers and night workers. I will give members an example of why that is the right thing to do.
I used to work for The Scottish Sun—[Interruption.] Somebody has to. I always worked at night—[Interruption.] I worked way later than we will be working tonight—I promise members that. Sometimes, I worked into the wee small hours.
When I first started there, in 1990, we were based in Kinning Park in Glasgow, and we could park in the street outside for free. Anyone who was at work during the day could get the underground or the bus, but people who worked late at night could not do that. The company decided to move into the city centre, with a new printing press off the M8; I will mention that later. The journalists were to work on Queen Street in Glasgow city centre. It is not possible to park there for long, and certainly not for a full shift. As our hours were, to say the least, antisocial, we kicked up a bit of a stink through our union. I was, later, the slightly militant rep of that union. We argued that making night workers go into the city centre was putting us at risk—[Interruption.] I am sorry that members are not interested, but what I am saying applies not just to journalists, but to any people who work at night—[Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer
Could we please keep the background chatter down?
Graham Simpson
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We said, and the company eventually accepted, that it should provide us with car parking because public transport, during the hours that we were working, was not an option. They paid for spaces in a private car park for those who needed their cars for their jobs and those who worked unsocial hours. It did not—as John Mason thinks—apply only to the top people. I believe that the option no longer applies for new staff at The Scottish Sun, which is a shame.
If you do not live in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee or Aberdeen, public transport is not available after certain times. Being expected not to use a car puts some workers—particularly lone females—at risk, which is an argument that we made strongly.
I mentioned the printing press that is off the M8 at Newhouse, as is the food company, Brakes. It told me:
“As a major employer in Newhouse, based in an out of town location and with a 24 hour operation, Brakes believe the proposal for a Workplace Parking Levy would have a negative impact on our employees and people who work under similar circumstances.”
John Mason
Does Graham Simpson accept that it is largely in city centres that there is a problem, and that city centre councils have said that they will consider the levy, and most others have said that they will not?
Graham Simpson
I definitely do not accept that. The company that I am describing is not based in the city centre. Its employees work unsocial hours and do not have access to public transport, so the levy would have a major effect on its employees.
Brakes also said:
“The lack of public transport infrastructure outside of major conurbations and the ability to provide suitable, safe and regular alternatives to fit with shift patterns to our site (and many like ours) leaves people no option but to drive to work, and imposing a further tax on them would be, in our view, unfair and punitive. We would strongly recommend an exemption for people who work shifts at out of town locations where the public transport infrastructure is inadequate.”
We can look elsewhere; examples do not have to be from my region. Sutherland Brothers, which is based at the airport industrial estate at Wick—which is in Gail Ross’s constituency—told me:
“Being a local, community, family-run wholesaler, operating on low margins and in a highly-competitive wholesale industry, the thought of yet another ‘tax or levy’ on our business, or to our employees, is one that neither we, nor they, can afford. Operating within an industrial estate and with poor public transport, our staff have no alternative but to use their car to commute to work.”
They have no alternative. That is the case
“Even more so where staff commute from areas outside of Wick and travelling in the early hours of the morning or late evenings to get to and from work.”
There is a theme. Both firms make the same point—that it is wrong to impose a tax on companies that are nowhere near transport hubs, be they bus stops or train stations, and that it is wrong to penalise companies whose staff work hours that preclude them from using public transport in any case. Amendments 29 and 35 would cover that point by exempting workplaces that are not near bus stops or train stations—which is a lot of workplaces. If the intention behind the levy is to get people out of their cars, what is done needs to be balanced and fair. For some people, using public transport is not an option, so I urge members to support my amendments.
Amendment 94, which is also in my name, would exempt from the levy any place that is primarily for the use of local authority employees. On reflection, I think that that would go too far, so I will not press it.
The Presiding Officer
I call Donald Cameron to speak to amendment 95 and the other amendments in the group.
Donald Cameron (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
I will speak to amendments 95, 96 and 97. The three amendments are self-explanatory and seek exemptions for three specific sectors: air ambulance and rescue service workers, health charity workers and those who work in veterinary services.
I will deal briefly with each in turn.
19:00Our air ambulance service men and women provide an invaluable service across Scotland, especially in more remote and rural areas, and they often work in extremely dangerous conditions and put their lives at risk. Likewise, those who work in health charities and veterinary services are valuable, hard-working members of society who carry out important work and often possess unique and vital skills.
The purpose behind the amendments is to protect people who work in those sectors. They should not be at risk of a car park tax at their workplace. The Scottish Government has already accepted that workers in the NHS should be exempt. Given that two of the amendments deal directly or indirectly with those who work in the health services, I urge members, for the sake of consistency, to support my amendments.
The Presiding Officer
I appreciate the brevity.
Jeremy Balfour
My amendment 98 seeks to address an omission in the section of the bill on national exemptions. The bill, as amended at stage 2, rightly allows for an exemption for NHS premises, but the issue of independent hospitals remains unresolved. My amendment would add a further provision to exempt premises that are used for employees who work in independent healthcare services.
The key principle is that all healthcare providers should not be burdened, deterred or put in a weaker place simply because of where they work. Whatever our view of independent hospitals is, that is not the issue that is before us. Many independent hospitals provide specialist services and care, and NHS patients can be referred to independent healthcare providers for further care and treatment.
It is worth noting that it is not just consultants and doctors who are employed in those places; nurses, administration staff, cleaners and other low-paid professionals work in them, too, and they should be exempt from paying the tax. They should be able to carry out their roles without financial penalties being imposed on them. I will therefore press my amendment 98.
I will touch on amendment 105. I remind members that I am in receipt of the personal independence payment, although I do not drive a car and do not have a licence.
I urge members to look at amendment 105 afresh and to agree to it. Last year, Jamie Hepburn produced a paper on people with disabilities who are trying to get into employment. My colleague Michelle Ballantyne has already pointed out the large discrepancy in Scotland in respect of the number of disabled people who are trying to get into employment. I welcome what the Scottish Government is doing to try to bring that number down, and I am sure that it has all-party support. Those who, like me, are on PIP or the disability living allowance want to work although they receive that benefit. We hear a lot from the Scottish Government about how it wants to deal with people on benefits with dignity and respect. Voting against amendment 105 would not be treating disabled people with dignity or respect. I urge the Government to think again on that amendment. The Government is penalising those who are disabled and want to go to work.
The Government will tell me that the money will be paid by an employer rather than an employee. Can members imagine an interview situation in which two people go for a job, one of whom has a disability and needs to use a car to get to work and the other does not? Who will be employed? What cost will be saved? The tax will hold disabled people back. It is a tax on disabled people, it is unfair, and I urge members to vote against it.
Colin Smyth
The amendments in the group look to exempt a number of people and groups from the tax. There are strong arguments to be made for each of the exemptions. Ultimately, that illustrates how unfair the workplace parking levy is. Every exemption that is suggested—from the exemption for police officers who need to travel to work by car for safety reasons to those for train drivers who need to take their car to drive the first train of the day and shift workers who have no access to public transport late at night—reveals the flaws in the policy.
My amendment 99 looks to exempt those who drive ultra-low-emission vehicles from paying the levy. Given that the purpose of the scheme is supposed to be to reduce emissions, it beggars belief that those who drive ultra-low-emission vehicles should be subject to paying the levy. That is not only an issue of fairness; in practical terms, exempting ultra-low-emission vehicles would provide a financial incentive to buy them. This really is a test of just how serious the Government is about encouraging that.
My amendment 100 looks to exempt low earners from paying the levy. This is a fundamental issue of fairness. It is a basic principle of fair taxation that the worst-off should not shoulder an unfair burden. As the bill stands, those who can least afford it will pay a higher proportion of their income than the well-off. What is proposed is a fundamentally regressive scheme that will hit the poorest the hardest. If the SNP is determined to force this tax through, the least that we can do is to set an earnings threshold to protect those on the lowest incomes.
Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)
In a similar vein to my colleagues, I speak to my amendments 166 and 169 with the intention of exempting certain key groups from the impact that the workplace parking tax would have. Amendment 166 would serve to exempt from the charge those who are employed by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, while amendment 169 would allow serving members of the armed forces to be similarly exempted.
Amendment 166 centres on the RNLI, which provides crucial maritime rescue and education services in Scotland. RNLI workers operate 24/7 and are prepared to respond to emergencies at any time of the day. That requires them to work irregular and unsocial hours. A workplace parking tax could encourage RNLI members to rely exclusively on public transport, and it would undermine their ability to fulfil their role as efficiently and effectively as possible. The RNLI is a charity and its members should be free from the financial strain of the workplace parking tax.
Amendment 169 centres on serving armed forces personnel. These men and women place others before themselves in often challenging and dangerous circumstances. To mark their contribution to our safety, serving armed forces personnel should surely be exempt from the parking charge.
With regard to the military bases and other areas of military employment across Scotland, public transport links are not always regular or direct, and in such instances personnel often have to rely on travelling by car in order to fulfil their duty. A workplace parking charge would seem to be an unfair burden in those cases.
Given the nature of their work, members of the RNLI and the armed forces would clearly benefit from exemptions being in place. I urge the Parliament to support my amendments 166 and 169.
The Presiding Officer
I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 167 and the other amendments in the group.
Jamie Greene
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have not had an opportunity to speak on the car park tax yet, and I would like to make some points on it. I thank my colleagues on the seats behind me and across the chamber, who have made some interesting and valid points. I noticed that, while they were speaking to their amendments, there was an awful lot of chitter-chatter going on and a lot of disinterest from the centre of the chamber, and do you know what? I think that that is absolutely shameful, because everything that has been said today is important. We have heard valid arguments from people who are trying to protect people in our country who will be affected by the legislation that the Government wants to pass, and members would do well to listen to some of those arguments.
However, if they do not want to listen to us—and they are perfectly within their rights not to do so—they should listen to others. They should listen to people outside this place—the Scottish Retail Consortium, the FSB, teaching unions, the Scottish Police Federation, motoring organisations and even the Scottish Association of Social Work, which wrote a letter to the Government. I have that letter, which pleaded with the Scottish Government not to support a workplace parking levy. The British Medical Association, Scottish prisons—there are so many organisations, many of which we would not normally support in terms of their message, but which have got the message out there that this is a regressive tax on hard-working public service workers and it should be opposed every step of the way.
Derek Mackay
Will the member take an intervention?
Jamie Greene
I will take an intervention if Mr Mackay will tell the people of Scotland why he wants to tax them for turning up at work.
Derek Mackay
Can the Conservatives not reflect for a moment—and can Jamie Greene answer this question—that all those business representative organisations and others are really concerned about something right now that will affect jobs, employment and the economy, and that is Brexit? Why are we to be deaf to the impact of Brexit, which will impact on our constituents far more than any Conservative scaremongering over an environmental measure?
Jamie Greene
There you have it, Presiding Officer. That is the answer to everything. It is now Brexit’s fault that the Scottish Government is introducing a tax on people in Scotland. It is always someone else’s fault. When is Mr Mackay going to take responsibility for the actions of his Government? His back-door, dodgy deal with the Greens is the reason why we are having this debate in the first place.
If the WPL is so important to Mr Mackay, where was it at stage 1? It was not even in the bill. It appeared at stage 2.
The committee that was looking at the bill did not have a proper opportunity to take evidence on it. We did not hear from witnesses. They are now coming out of the woodwork after they heard about the policy. We should have done this at stage 1; that is how the Parliament makes good law.
The only parties that support the levy are the Greens and the SNP. Let us sum everything up by considering what John Mason had to say about the tax in the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Let us listen to the words of the SNP and hear what its members think the levy is really all about. John Mason said:
“the levy does not affect poorer people; it affects richer people. It is a tax on the elite.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 19 June 2019; c 31.]
Mr Mason, if you think the elite are teachers, social care workers, firefighters, RNLI volunteers and people on shift work, what planet are you living on? It is not the same one that we are on.
Not a single amendment came from the Greens and the SNP.
John Mason
Will the member give way?
Jamie Greene
If you want to explain those words, I am happy to give you that opportunity. You are the gift that keeps on giving in this debate.
John Mason
I thank Mr Greene for his kind words.
Mr Greene knows perfectly well that we took evidence that the problems with congestion are in the city centres, where there are few schools, and few social workers and train drivers have parking spaces. In the city centres, including in this building, it is the richer people who have the parking spaces. They are the ones who are being targeted.
Jamie Greene
Your front bench even looks embarrassed at those comments. They are shocking. No wonder you were reported in every national newspaper the day after you said that. It is unbelievable that that is your view of the world. It is unbelievable that you think that the only people who get a parking space are somehow the rich or the elite in the upper echelons. That is a shocking attitude to have towards Scotland’s workforce.
John Mason’s words demonstrate that any shred of credibility that the SNP had on standing up for social justice in Parliament will go right out of the door when it votes for this to go through. Ditch the tax and ditch it now.
The Presiding Officer
I appreciate that it is getting late and tempers are getting a bit frayed. However, I encourage members not to use the word “you” when speaking about other members.
Michelle Ballantyne
The Department for Work and Pensions and Social Security Scotland have implemented a variety of short-term payments to help people in times of need. The effectiveness of those measures could be seriously undermined by the introduction of a workplace parking levy.
In the first three months of this year, the average crisis grant payment from the Scottish welfare fund was £87. Those applying for the grant do so because they are in urgent need of funding, yet if they are charged for parking under the proposals, those people are far more likely to have to apply for more grants.
The Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People (Shirley-Anne Somerville)
Does the member agree that the main reason why people apply to the Scottish welfare fund is that their benefits are not paid in time, and one of the main reasons why we have in-work poverty is because workers’ benefits are not sufficient? Perhaps we could tackle that at source rather than attacking a workplace parking levy.
Michelle Ballantyne
What I find really sad about that is, if the cabinet secretary thinks that there is an issue, how will compounding it help? That is the issue.
SNP members are sitting here tonight, intending to vote for something that will be applied to the very people whom you talk about needing to help all the time. We have to look at whether the levy should have exemptions. You have already decided that NHS staff should have an exemption. I said at stage 2, and I will repeat it today, that I do not understand how you can say that everybody who works for the NHS, including consultants on very large salaries, should be exempt but that those who are in receipt of benefits and trying to improve their lives and get out of poverty through work should have to pay a levy for going to work. That is not fair, however you look at it.
You have voted today that there will be a workplace parking levy, and we are trying to say to you—and I think you should listen—that some people should be exempt. You think the NHS should have an exemption—
The Presiding Officer
Ms Ballantyne, just stop for one second. I appreciate that the member is not trying to be personal, but the term “you” does not apply to any member in this chamber. The only time “you” applies is when members are addressing the chair—it does not apply to other members or parties.
19:15Michelle Ballantyne
The collective members who represent the SNP and the Greens believe that people who are on benefits and low pay should have to pay to go to work. We are suggesting today that you vote for amendments that would exempt those people, and that you collectively vote—
Members: “You!”
Michelle Ballantyne
I am obviously going to have to practise this—along with everybody in the chamber.
We are suggesting that members on the SNP and Green benches collectively vote to exempt people from those arrangements. [Interruption.] I know that you all think that this is terribly funny and you are really enjoying it, but I can tell you that there are a lot of people out there who are not going to find this at all funny.
In the debate on an earlier amendment, I spoke about the impact on people who have disabilities, and my colleague Jeremy Balfour spoke powerfully about that impact. The message that you are going to send today is, “We know it’s tough to get to work when you are disabled, but that is not the issue. We need to get our budget through with the Greens so we’re keeping to our agreement and we’re going to make you pay for that deal.” That is not fair.
Many members on the SNP benches have been incredibly vocal in their opposition to universal credit. The Minister for Children and Young People said that she believes universal credit shows a complete “lack of empathy”; the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs described it as “dreadful” and the convener of the Social Security Committee argued that it “punishes” people. I believe that universal credit ensures that those who rejoin the workforce on a part-time basis are not left in difficulties. People can gradually build up their work, and it provides a clear route to help people out of poverty. In those early stages when someone is trying to get back into the workforce and improve their chances, being slapped with a fine for parking at work is not going to help. Amendment 102 would protect UC claimants from the punitive damage that the workplace parking levy would inflict.
I will conclude, because everyone needs to have their say. If Maree Todd is sincere in her empathy, if Fiona Hyslop really is filled with dread and if Bob Doris genuinely does not want to see claimants punished, I ask you to support our amendments, because that is the right thing to do for people who are trying to do the best for themselves and their families.
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you make a ruling or give me advice? Michelle Ballantyne never once in the past five minutes spoke to the amendment. She spoke about social security and benefits. I am asking you to rule that she did not speak to the amendment.
The Presiding Officer
I know the point that Ms White makes, but I did feel that Ms Ballantyne spoke to the subject in hand and certainly to the purpose of the amendment.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
The fact remains that this policy allows a levy to be passed on to workers. If the levy is to be in the bill, that is why we need exemptions. In Nottingham, eight out of 10 employers pass on the levy to the workforce.
The intention of the policy is clear—it is to stop people driving to work. That is the central tenet of the policy, yet what is interesting this afternoon is that not one SNP member will rise to their feet to argue the substance of the policy—not one of them. Linda Fabiani is on record as saying:
“The workplace parking charge is in fact an extra tax on business.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2000; c 314.]
There are many others.
The intention is to avoid saying what they are embarrassed about. The people of Scotland will not be happy when they know that the SNP has put this power in a bill and that SNP members support it. The SNP might win the vote tonight, but it will not win the argument on the car parking tax.
I do not know what land John Mason is living in, but it will be decades before we raise the serious levels of cash that are needed to make public transport a choice for many people. I would have more respect for the SNP if it gave us crossrail, new trams or even a rail link to Glasgow airport. It is a joke that SNP members come to the chamber and say that ordinary working people will have to take the bus or the train—there is no logic in that. According to the Evening Times, 88 per cent of people in Glasgow are against the tax. It is clear that there is no popular support for it among ordinary people.
On a serious note, over the summer, I did some work on the issue and spoke to many companies in the west of Scotland. They said that if they paid the charge, it would affect their margins and, for that reason, they would have to pass it on to workers. Notably, a company in Glasgow city centre—John Mason does not seem to realise this, although it might be in his constituency—has three apprentices who would lose their jobs if the company has to pay the charge. Such are the sums of money that companies will have to pay—one will have to pay £68,000.
If SNP members do not care about that, do they care that the policy will impact more on lone parents and women than on anybody else? Helen Martin of the STUC gave evidence at stage 2 and said that the workplace parking tax is a policy that is completely out of touch. Without a shadow of a doubt, it will be low-paid workers who pay the price.
I would have more respect for the policy if the money was to be ring fenced. I tried to intervene on the minister earlier. He said that the money would have to be used for strategies, but not for actual public transport.
Michael Matheson
Will Pauline McNeill give way?
Pauline McNeill
No. The minister did not take an intervention from me when he had the chance.
There is a contradiction with the exemptions—I will let the minister in if he wants to answer this point. Why would there be a—[Interruption.] This is a serious point, Mr Matheson. Why is the principle of exemptions in the bill for some workers—I support the exemption for NHS workers—if the minister is not willing to extend it to those mentioned by other members who have risen to their feet? The truth is that the minister wants to wash his hands of the policy; he is not really interested in making the case for it.
I believe that SNP members are embarrassed about the policy, despite their rhetoric. If they vote tonight to put it in the bill, I ask that they at least consider voting for amendments that will mean that people who earn less than the living wage will not have to pay a car parking tax, and that lone parents—or anybody with childcare responsibilities—who need to drop off their kids before they go to their work will not be affected by such a policy.
Does the SNP really believe in its anti-poverty policies? Let us not forget that the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017, which was supported by members of this Government, has a provision that recognises that lone parents are among the poorest, yet SNP members are going to vote against my amendment that tries to exempt lone parents. Shame on them for doing that!
I have rarely felt as angry as the way that I feel about this Scottish Government policy. If the SNP really cares about its policies, it needs to be serious about public transport improvements and anti-poverty policies. At the very least, if we are stuck with this policy, the SNP needs to put some exemptions in. The people of Scotland will thank it for that, at least.
Michael Matheson
A large number of amendments in this group seek to add further national exemptions to workplace parking licensing schemes. In the available time, I cannot deal with each of those individually, but I want to comment on the general approach.
Some of the proposed exemptions apply to particular premises, some to vehicles and others to people who are in particular circumstances. Local authorities have a wide range of powers to apply local exemptions to premises, persons or motor vehicles. They can vary the charges that are payable under the scheme to different days, different times of day, different parts of the licensing area, different people and different premises. Licensing schemes will be shaped by local needs and local transport objectives, and locally appropriate exemptions will be a key part of that.
Jeremy Balfour
Will Michael Matheson take an intervention?
Michael Matheson
I want to make progress.
Setting substantial and wide-ranging national exemptions, as some members propose today, risks undermining local authorities’ ability to develop and implement effective schemes to meet local needs. However, I suspect that that is the intention of some members.
Tonight, Conservative Party members have sought to portray that discretionary power for local authorities as iniquitous and have suggested that it is outrageous that authorities should have such a power. If it is such an appalling and unworthy power for local authorities, why has the Conservative Government in London allowed it to remain on the statute books for local authorities in England and Wales? Is it okay for councils in England and Wales to have the discretionary powers to consider those matters but not for us to allow Scottish local authorities to have them? The Tories are never keen to give powers to Scotland. I suspect that that is just another example of that attitude from the Conservative Party.
The levy is intended to deal with parking spaces that are used by individuals who are visiting premises to carry out their business. I turn to Mike Rumbles’ amendments 87 and 88, which seek to remove parking spaces used by business customers from the definition of liable parking spaces. As I stated, that provision is intended to deal with parking spaces that are used by individuals who visit premises to carry out their business, and not, for example, people who park at a supermarket. It is a charge on the parking space, so the occupier of the premises where it is provided is liable, not the business customer. Therefore, it is not clear why we would want to exempt a parking space at a business that is used by people to carry out business.
Amendments 28, 29 and 37 seek to prevent ministers from specifying that under the licensing scheme, certain people are to be liable for charges. Those amendments seem to proceed on the assumption that people who use workplace parking might be liable for the charge under the scheme. However, it is only providers of workplace parking who are liable for charges. The bill makes no provision for recovery of the charges by the provider.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I urge members to reject all the amendments in the group.
Mike Rumbles
The debate on this group of amendments, which deal with exemptions to the workplace parking levy, has been heated. That is because there are genuine concerns that, when, in a moment, we vote on them, the amendments will not be accepted. The issues that have been raised are not being properly weighed on their merits to improve the bill.
My amendments 87 and 88 are really one amendment. If we do not accept that amendment, it will add costs to businesses. Those businesses will have to pass the costs on to customers. As I said, I have submitted only one amendment, with another consequential to that. The bill is supposed to be about behavioural change. If members do not accept amendments 87 and 88, it is not about behavioural change; it is about adding costs.
Andy Wightman
Will the member take an intervention?
Mike Rumbles
In a moment.
When Liam Kerr spoke to his amendment, Gillian Martin made the point that the current Aberdeenshire Council administration would not impose the workplace parking levy. Of course it would not. Like Mark McDonald earlier, Ms Martin fails to understand that we are supposed to be making the law of the land for the future and for future administrations. I am being unkind, because I do not think for one minute that Gillian Martin and Mark McDonald do not understand that. I am sure that they know it perfectly well.
Finally, on the points that the minister made just now, I am disappointed with his response to amendments 87 and 88. He said:
“It is a charge on the ... space.”
I agree with him; that is the point of the amendments. He is absolutely right, but he is drawing the wrong conclusion. That is my point. The charge is on the space in the business, so what is the business going to do? There is no behavioural change there. The suppliers to that business will still have to bring in their goods; they are not going to change their behaviour. Are the customers going to change their behaviour? They will if the prices go up as a result of the provision, so we will damage our retailers as well. It is just not logical. If the whole point is behavioural change, amendments 87 and 88 need to be accepted.
19:30The Presiding Officer
Before we move to the votes, because there will be a series of 57 votes, I highlight that we are running late by approximately half an hour. Therefore, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the time limit for the debate on groups 22 to 24 by 30 minutes. That means that all subsequent time limits will be extended and, as a consequence, I will delay decision time.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit be moved by 30 minutes.—[Graeme Dey]
Motion agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
For the information of people in the gallery, because I know that there is a big reception for Dementia Scotland and others, that means that decision time will be moved back by half an hour. The debate on the bill will not finish until at least half past 8, which means that members’ business will not finish until later. You might wish to pass that information on to others.
I will move to the votes. The first question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 87 disagreed to.
Amendment 88 not moved.
Amendment 2 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Section 58C—Power to make and modify schemes
Amendment 89 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 89 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Section 58D—Prior consultation and impact assessment
Amendment 162 moved—[Dean Lockhart].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 162 disagreed to.
Amendment 163 moved—[Dean Lockhart].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 163 disagreed to.
Amendment 164 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 164 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 164 disagreed to.
Amendment 165 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 165 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Section 58E—Scottish ministers’ power to regulate process
Amendment 90 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Section 58F—Local inquiries
Amendment 91 moved—[Michael Matheson].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 82, Against 31, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 91 agreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Section 58G—Licence applications and processes
Amendment 92 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 106, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 92 agreed to.
Amendment 7 moved—[Neil Bibby].
19:45The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Section 58H—Content of licences
Amendment 8 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 49, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 disagreed to.
Section 58I—Exemptions etc
Amendment 93 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.
Amendment 9 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 disagreed to.
Section 58J—National exemptions
Amendment 30 moved—[Annie Wells].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 30 disagreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[Liz Smith].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 49, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
Amendment 24 moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 disagreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 disagreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Liam Kerr].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27 disagreed to.
Amendment 31 moved—[Annie Wells].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 31 disagreed to.
Amendment 32 moved—[Annie Wells].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 32 disagreed to.
Amendment 33 moved—[Annie Wells].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 33 disagreed to.
Amendment 34 moved—[Graham Simpson].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 34 disagreed to.
Amendment 35 moved—[Graham Simpson].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 35 disagreed to.
Amendment 94 not moved.
Amendment 95 moved—[Donald Cameron].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 95 disagreed to.
Amendment 96 moved—[Donald Cameron].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 96 disagreed to.
Amendment 97 moved—[Donald Cameron].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
20:00The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 48, Against 58, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 97 disagreed to.
Amendment 98 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 98 disagreed to.
Amendment 99 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 99 disagreed to.
Amendment 166 moved—[Maurice Corry].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 166 disagreed to.
The Presiding Officer
I call amendment 167, in the name of Jamie Greene.
Jamie Greene
Members will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to move amendment 167. [Applause.]
Amendment 167 not moved.
Amendment 100 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 20, Against 90, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 100 disagreed to.
Amendment 101 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 101 disagreed to.
Amendment 102 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 102 disagreed to.
Amendment 103 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 47, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 103 disagreed to.
Amendment 104 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 104 disagreed to.
Amendment 105 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 47, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 105 disagreed to.
Amendment 106 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 47, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 106 disagreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Colleagues, I am going to call a short suspension. Despite moving decision time, we have run out of procedural time—or, rather, we have run into a procedural impasse.
I ask all the business managers to come down to the well of the chamber for a discussion, and I ask members not to go too far from the chamber, as we might need to have a vote before quarter past eight.
20:09 Meeting suspended.20:24 On resuming—
The Presiding Officer
Colleagues, we have discussed the situation with the business managers and have reluctantly agreed that there is too much business to get through this evening. Members are clearly flagging and other business is waiting, including members’ business.
Members: Some members are flagging!
The Presiding Officer
Yes, thank you.
After the discussion with the business managers, with members’ agreement, we have agreed to finish the rest of the voting in the group. I think that there are roughly 12 votes left. We will then go to decision time, and there are a number of votes to be taken at decision time. We will then go to members’ business, as members have been waiting for that.
We will then have to take the four remaining groups of amendments tomorrow. We will come back with a revised business timetabling motion at 11:40 tomorrow, to allow for the debates and voting on the remaining four groups to happen tomorrow. That will probably have a knock-on effect on decision time tomorrow evening. We hope to be able to trim either the debate or some other items of business tomorrow so that decision time does not have to be moved by a whole hour. There will be a timetable to vote on at 11:40 tomorrow.
To summarise, we will finish the group that we are dealing with now. We will then move to decision time. There will be a revised business programme for members to vote on at 11:40 tomorrow. That will probably mean that there will be a change to decision time tomorrow evening. Are we agreed with that way of proceeding?
Members indicated agreement.
Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
The founding principle of this Parliament when it was formed was that it would be a family-friendly Parliament. The way in which this debate has been organised by the bureau has been anything but family friendly. That is not to mention the great disservice that has been done to Sandra White, her members’ business debate, all the people who are here for it, and the cross-party groups.
We are about to go into the final 18 months of the parliamentary session. As those of us who have been around a wee while know, the next 18 months will be full of stage 3s, which will take up a lot of time. I therefore ask the bureau to reflect on what has happened this week and tonight, to make sure that it does not happen again, and that we return to the founding principle of being a family and public-friendly Parliament.
The Presiding Officer
I thank the member for the point of order. He might be interested to know that we have had exactly that discussion in the bureau. We are particularly aware of the fact that this is a family-friendly Parliament. All your business managers are totally committed to the idea of a family-friendly Parliament, and every time that we have had to move decision time, they have debated that. We had a very fraught debate about moving decision time this evening.
Along with Sandra White, I am the sponsor of tonight’s event on dementia in Scotland, so I am aware of the effect that this is having on tonight’s events, including the other events that are taking place.
Mr Neil is quite right. The Parliament and the business managers are debating this very subject. We are extremely conscious that business is piling up and that there will be a lot of stage 3s in exactly this situation as we go through the next few months. The point is not lost on any of the business managers.
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
The Presiding Officer
Hang on a second, Mr Findlay.
The subject is on our agenda for the next meeting. It has been on the agenda previously, and we will return to it. I assure Mr Neil that the very sentiment that he has expressed is shared by all the business managers.
Neil Findlay
Presiding Officer, I hear what you are saying. However, you will recall that, when I was business manager for the Labour group, I raised these issues consistently. Every time that I did so, I was outvoted on the bureau. That is the problem.
The Presiding Officer
Mr Findlay raised these matters, and he is not the only business manager to have done so. Normally business managers are not outvoted; we reach a consensual agreement, having noted the points that business managers have made.
This issue is not new. It has been on-going since the Parliament started. We are getting better at dealing with it, but it still comes up as a tricky issue every time that we have a contentious stage 3. The points are well made and noted, and I am sure that all the business managers will take them on board.
I suggest that we move on and try to get business done, so that we do not keep people waiting any longer.
Amendment 107 is in the name of Pauline McNeill, but I ask Elaine Smith to move it.
Amendment 107 moved—[Elaine Smith].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 107 disagreed to.
20:30Amendment 108 moved—[Elaine Smith].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 108 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 108 disagreed to.
Amendment 168 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 168 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 168 disagreed to.
Amendment 169 moved—[Maurice Corry].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 169 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 169 disagreed to.
Amendment 36 not moved.
Amendment 170 moved—[Michelle Ballantyne].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 170 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 170 disagreed to.
Amendment 10 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10 disagreed to.
Section 58K—Charges
Amendment 109 moved—[Colin Smyth].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 109, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 109 agreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Graham Simpson].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Amendment 29 moved—[Graham Simpson].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 47, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Amendment 37 not moved.
Amendment 11 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
The Presiding Officer
We will end consideration of amendments there, for this evening. Consideration of amendments to four sections, and the stage 3 debate, will take place tomorrow.
9 October 2019
Final debate on the Bill
Once they've debated the amendments, the MSPs discuss the final version of the Bill.
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
As members will be aware, at this point in proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether any provision in the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it would modify the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my opinion, no provision in the Transport (Scotland) Bill would do any such thing. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority in order to be passed at stage 3.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)
We come now to the stage 3 debate on motion S5M-19335, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I say to members that there is not an inch of time in hand.
15:08The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson)
The Transport (Scotland) Bill is an ambitious and broad piece of legislation to develop cleaner, smarter and more accessible transport networks and systems. Its provisions include measures to improve bus patronage and air quality in our towns and cities, to increase the safety and efficiency of road works and to address antisocial parking. They also make some necessary technical improvements in quite specific areas. For example, they ensure that there will be more appropriate financial flexibility and governance arrangements for some public bodies. In addition, the Government’s transport strategy amendments that were agreed to yesterday help to frame the bill around a wider set of outcomes. That builds on the measures in the bill to help Scotland to reduce emissions and to play its part in addressing the global climate emergency.
The bill received a lot of attention at stage 2. More than 400 amendments were considered by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Given that the bill’s contents are not only wide ranging and aspirational, but quite technical and complex in some areas, overseeing such scrutiny is no mean feat. I thank the committee and its clerks for their work and the long hours on stage 2 before the summer recess. I thank the stakeholders and individuals who submitted evidence at stage 1 and who were engaged in the pre-consultation process that shaped the bill. I also thank my bill team for their outstanding work over a number of months to ensure that the bill was prepared properly for presentation to the Government and for consideration at committee and in the chamber.
The Government’s vision is for Scotland to have the cleanest air in Europe. The low-emission zone provisions in the bill are a key pillar of our commitment to improving air quality as quickly as possible. LEZs have the potential to interact with a host of other transport issues, such as congestion, active travel and encouraging the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles. We are working closely with local authorities to put in place low-emission zones in Scotland’s four largest cities by 2020.
A range of views have been expressed on LEZs in Parliament. Many of those are to do with matters that will be addressed in regulations at a later date rather than in the bill. I am confident that, should Parliament see fit to pass the bill this evening, the constructive dialogue that we have had through stages 1, 2 and 3 will continue, as I am keen for that to help to shape the regulations.
The draft national transport strategy clearly states that buses are a key part of the sustainable public transport system in helping to address the climate emergency. The bill offers an ambitious new model for improving bus services and will ensure that there will be sustainable bus networks across Scotland.
Parliament has now agreed measures that will enable local transport authorities to operate their own public passenger transport services, should they choose to do so. We will work with local transport authorities, the Competition and Markets Authority and others to develop clear guidance on the matter. Moreover, the bill will improve the information on the bus services that are available to passengers, helping them to plan their journeys; it will also accelerate the implementation of smart ticketing across Scotland.
The prohibitions on pavement parking and double parking will help to ensure that our pavements and roads are accessible for all, particularly those with mobility considerations. I particularly welcome the cross-party approach that we have had on parking reforms, and I believe that we have struck the right balance in the bill to tackle that issue.
The Green Party’s amendments on workplace parking levies have generated considerable debate. The measures give a discretionary power to local authorities—I emphasise that it is a power, not a duty. Such schemes can help to reduce congestion and tackle emissions by influencing travel behaviour, and they have the potential to be a valuable tool in delivering local measures to address the global climate emergency and tackle climate change.
The bill’s provisions on road works will enhance our current framework and improve quality, safety and performance. The bill also gives flexibility to regional transport partnerships and the Scottish Canals Board.
For all those reasons, I urge members across the chamber to support the bill this evening.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Transport (Scotland) Bill be passed.
15:13Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)
I thank members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and the committee’s clerks; I also thank the parliamentary clerks who helped to draft amendments, which was quite an onerous process. I thank my staff members, who have had many late nights drafting amendments at stages 2 and 3. I also thank the cabinet secretary and his team for their fairly constructive approach throughout the process.
A large number of external organisations have taken great interest in the bill, for the obvious reason that the bill’s contents are of great interest to people outside this building. I have met many external organisations and councillors, and even members of the public have contacted us in great numbers with their own views and concerns about the bill.
Overall, I think that the bill process has been positive; equally, I am disappointed in the final direction that the bill has taken. There is a lot to be positive about in the bill. The Scottish Conservatives support a lot of the measures in it, and I will address some of those.
First, I have perhaps shifted from where I stood on low-emission zones when I joined the Parliament, because I now see the good in them. I have gone through a journey in understanding what they will do to improve air quality in our cities. We tried to amend the bill as best we could to get it into better shape, but I wish the cities that choose to set up low-emission zones the very best. I hope that, in the future, there will be no need for LEZs because they will have fulfilled their objectives. I hope that we all share that aspiration.
Through the bill, we have worked to improve parking in our towns and cities. Pavement parking is a scourge in our towns and needs to stop, and I hope that the bill will address that. However, I voiced concerns about the approach that is taken in the bill. The plans to ban pavement parking completely that were presented to us seemed impractical and unworkable, and, following stage 3, I am not convinced that people outside this building will fully understand the consequences of the ban. Further, I am not entirely convinced that local authorities are aware of the exemption process and how it will work, nor am I confident about the enforcement that will take place. Where on earth are all the cars going to go once they are moved off the pavements? I do not have an answer to that question—I am not sure that any of us do. That is a problem that the bill presents.
Bus franchising is another major aspect of the bill. I support local authorities having the ability to run bus services if they choose to do so. Again, Conservative members have had what might seem to be a surprising shift in opinion from the views that we have expressed historically. We supported Labour on the issue at stage 2 because that seemed the right decision to take. However, as I said yesterday, we also created a bit of a mess in the bill at that stage. I hope that the end product is provisions that allow those who currently operate in the commercial environment to be able to do so fairly and transparently, but which give local authorities the extra power that we all, I think, want them to have.
Alas—this is my final point, given the short time, unfortunately, that I have to speak—I come to the workplace parking levy, on which there has been a lot of debate. The Conservatives lodged a series of very sensible and reasonable amendments to exempt a series of workers from the tax, but every single one of them was voted down by the Government. The Parliament did not endorse the policy at stage 1, and I would not have signed up to it if it had been in the stage 1 report. I accept that the issue was always going to be controversial, but I do not think that taking the approach that has been taken is how good law is made. It has undermined the parliamentary and committee processes and, structurally, it is not how bills should be presented.
It is with huge regret that I say that, because of the inclusion of the car park tax, Conservative members will vote against the Transport (Scotland) Bill at decision time. Given everything that I have heard from members of the public in the past 24 hours, those who support the car park tax today will rue the day that they did.
15:17Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)
I, too, place on record my thanks to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, its clerks and assistants, the many stakeholders who gave their views on the bill, the Parliament’s legislation team for its outstanding work, and the cabinet secretary’s staff, who discussed a number of issues with me and my team.
The bill was an opportunity to transform our transport system and to lay the groundwork for the greener, fairer and more accessible transport system that we need. However, in many ways, the bill has been a missed opportunity. The proposals on low-emission zones introduce a much-needed framework that will contribute to meeting our climate change aims, and they are very welcome. However, given that the bill will shape LEZs for the foreseeable future, it needs to be fit for purpose, and the final proposals, in my view, are not.
The bill provided the Scottish Government with a chance to move forward with its commitment in the programme for government to
“make the transformative shift to zero or ultra-low emission city centres by 2030”.
However, the Scottish National Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats voted down an amendment in my name that would have allowed for the creation of ultra-low-emission zones. It is therefore hard to see the pledge in the programme for government as anything other than empty words. The grace period that the bill sets out fails to recognise the urgency of our climate crisis and means that LEZs might not be fully up and running for six years after they are introduced. It might be a climate emergency when it comes to the Government’s rhetoric, but it is certainly not an emergency when it comes to its actions.
The bill is a missed opportunity to deliver a more equal Scotland. I attempted to amend the bill to require bus service improvement plans and franchises to meet the needs of people who are living in poverty and those with protected characteristics. I also sought to ensure that companies that receive taxpayers’ money to provide services make those services open to all, by providing information in accessible formats on request, such as bus timetables in Braille for the blind. I also tried to ensure that drivers would be required to undergo regular disability awareness training. All those measures are entirely within the powers of the Parliament but, shamefully, they were voted down by the SNP and the Tories, which was a real betrayal of disabled people.
The ban on pavement parking is welcome, but it could have been stronger. Parking on pavements is not just a nuisance; it is a hazard. My proposal to move the exemption regarding deliveries from primary to secondary legislation would have closed a potential loophole in the ban by making it easier to adjust if required.
The failure of the SNP and the Tories to support my amendment to close a loophole that still allows parking in cycle lanes has rightly been described by Cycling UK in Scotland as “a squandered opportunity”. No wonder the Government’s record on promoting cycling in Scotland remains so woeful.
The one area in which we have seen progress since stage 1 is bus ownership. The bill originally tinkered around the edges of our failed deregulated system. My amendment to the bill at stage 2 brought an end to the ban on councils setting up local bus companies, giving councils the power to help end the dismantling of lifeline bus routes and put a stop to rip-off fares. I welcome the Government’s support for that move through its amendment at stage 3. I also pay tribute to everyone who has so successfully campaigned for the measure: our trade unions, such as Unite; the Scottish Co-op Party; Get Glasgow Moving; Friends of the Earth; and colleagues such as lain Gray, who previously proposed a member’s bill with the aim of lifting the ban.
However, if we want such a power to become a reality, and if we are serious about improving our environment, we must provide support for our councils to establish municipal bus services and invest in public transport—and not keep cutting the council budgets that are needed to make such investment.
What will not protect our environment is the ill-thought-out, short-sighted workplace parking levy. The fact that the SNP and the Greens voted against exempting electric vehicles and exempting people who live in poverty from that attack on workers shows that it has nothing to do with emission lowering and everything to do with revenue raising. However, that sticking plaster will not cover the gaping wound in local council budgets. It is no wonder that every trade union is opposed to the workplace parking levy. Labour makes no apology for being on the side of workers and making it clear that it cannot and will not support it.
15:21John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The bill is a very positive piece of legislation. As other members have done, I thank the committee’s staff, the civil servants, those who have provided briefings and all those who have contributed to our work on it—not least the long-suffering Archie Stoddart, one of the Scottish Government’s transport officials, who I hope will now get his life back.
At the outset of the debate, the cabinet secretary said that the bill is all about strategy and framing. That is how it should be seen: we are responding to climate breakdown and a global emergency over the state of our climate, and the bill is but one small part of that response.
The creation of the low-emission zone is a positive step. It is not just a paper exercise but will address the plight of the several thousand folk each year in Scotland who die because of poor air quality. As I keep saying in the chamber, that is not a matter that is restricted to our major cities. The town that I live in has a zone with poor air quality. The approach should be quite the reverse of encouraging people to come into town centres: we should be encouraging them to keep their vehicles out of them.
Such an approach is partly about providing good public transport. I know that a lot of people campaigned in different ways, and my colleague Colin Smyth has just mentioned some of them. I thank everyone who contributed to the Scottish Greens’ better bus campaign. Especially during our consideration of the amendments to the bill at stage 3, there was a lot of discussion about how the mechanics of the bill played together, and criticisms have been levied. In relation to buses, there was a situation to which the Government responded. I appreciate that it felt that it had to carry out checks, but we are not in a position in which all the parties in the chamber support our local authorities having the opportunity to run buses. The previous situation, in which there was no commercial profit to be made, was never going to be an attractive option, so that is a positive step.
My colleague Jamie Greene was very frank and honest in saying that he had gone on a personal journey in relation to the progress of the bill. I understand that: I am a car owner, too. The idea that some of these policies attack car owners is incorrect. We cannot have a situation in which everyone is content to say that although there is an emergency the status quo should prevail. I suspect that many members will now go on similar journeys.
Of course, the Scottish Greens would like to see a lot more folk going on free journeys through the extension of concessionary travel to people aged under 26. I have often mentioned Lothian Buses moving into East Lothian and arresting the decline in passenger numbers there by targeting young people.
We need to get people into the habit of using public transport. We also need to encourage people to get involved in active travel. I am therefore pleased at the support from members on all sides of the chamber for road orders, which Age Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities both want. I appreciate that—as we know—the cabinet secretary will undertake a review in that area.
In the short time that I have left, I will keep my comments positive. I could have said many negative things about the conduct of the debate, but it is important that all of us in the chamber, regardless of the position that we take on certain matters, understand and respect that other members have strongly held views.
I urge members to have a look at the work of the UK Parliament Transport Committee—I read a news report just before I came to the chamber. It said:
“Ministers consider pay-as-you-go road pricing to fill car tax black hole.”
The committee is also looking at charging for emission zones and introducing something called the workplace levy. Let us see what happens with those options. There is nothing new in what we have done in the bill, and it is fairly modest, but I think that it is a good piece of legislation. I will leave it there.
15:25Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
When the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee produced its stage 1 report on the bill, we were heartened by the cabinet secretary’s response. We felt that there had been major improvements to the bill, such as the changes that were made to ensure that our local authorities would be able to establish their own bus companies in such a way that they would not be subject to running buses only on unprofitable routes. What company has ever been set up on that basis? Michael Matheson responded in the right way and amended the bill.
I worked with the cabinet secretary to see whether we could reach a reasonable compromise on pavement parking. We did, and the Government supported my amendments to ensure that a minimum width of 1.5m would be left clear. That is a real improvement—I say, as I said yesterday, well done to the cabinet secretary for listening, taking note of and supporting the correct action to improve the bill. That is how legislating in the Parliament is supposed to work.
Improving the Transport (Scotland) Bill was going very well until 20 completely new sections, on the workplace parking levy, were just dumped on us at stage 2. To use a familiar analogy, the bill process seems to have been a game of two halves. We all have our differences on the need for the new levy. The two nationalist parties want it, and the non-nationalist parties do not want it. [Interruption.] I have no time for an intervention—we are short of time.
It is absolutely right and proper to lodge amendments to take that new measure out of the bill completely, and equally it is right and proper for the two nationalist parties to vote against those amendments. The attempt to remove the measure from the bill failed. Once that had happened, we moved on to other amendments on the subject, with the aim—in the opinion of Liberal Democrat members—of making a bad measure better. However, every single amendment—every single one—to the 20 new sections of the bill was voted down. All Opposition amendments were voted down by the two nationalist parties. Here is my point. No amendments were even lodged by back-bench nationalist MSPs to improve those 20 sections of the bill—those MSPs would not even seek to amend the bill themselves.
It is apparent to me that there have been two approaches to the bill. First, the Scottish Government recognised that it was not the fount of all knowledge and was amenable to amending the bill. However, when we came to the 20 new sections, on the workplace parking levy, suddenly the bill could not be improved. That is amazing—the Government is obviously infallible.
It is a disappointment to me to see such naked tribalism in action. I well remember the first three sessions of Parliament, from 1999 to 2011, when although parties had major differences, they could at least work together to produce good law. I was not here in the previous session; I am glad that, if I had to miss one session, it was to be that one. Why? It is because I was told, and I could see from afar, that pushing through legislation without full scrutiny and amendments produced bad law. Here we are again, it seems. This time, it is the two nationalist parties pushing through the workplace parking levy without amendments that are making bad law.
There are good measures in the bill, such as enabling our local authorities to set up unfettered bus companies to run profitable routes as well as unprofitable ones; a much-needed ban on pavement parking; and the creation of low-emission zones. Those are all very good things, but the Liberal Democrats cannot support the creation of a bad law, and we will vote against the bill at decision time.
The Labour Party’s saying that it is against the workplace parking levy and then voting for it at decision time says everything about the Labour Party. Far be it from me to intrude on personal grief in the Labour Party, but the correct course of action would be MSPs voting against the bill at decision time and asking the Scottish Government to bring back a new transport bill with the good measures that we could all have supported.
15:30Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
I hope that I can bring some joy to this debate on the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
I thank the members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and its convener for allowing me to attend that committee, and I thank its clerks for all the work that they have done in a mammoth task that has covered many issues.
I will concentrate on pavement parking, double parking and dropped footways. I mentioned the committee’s mammoth task. That was nothing compared with the years that it has taken to get responsible parking legislation through the Parliament. Believe it or not, I brought forward my bill in 2012. I sincerely thank Ross Finnie, who was a Lib Dem MSP, and Joe FitzPatrick MSP for introducing bills and for all the work that they did. It was an honour for me to take matters forward in my bill in 2012.
I also thank the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Living Streets and all the other individuals and groups that have helped to bring the legislation to fruition.
I will be appalled if the Conservatives and Lib Dems vote against the bill. We are talking about years to get something that will give people justice in relation to responsible parking, and they will vote against that just because of certain aspects of the bill. It really pains me to say that.
Jamie Greene
Will the member give way?
Sandra White
I have only four minutes. I am sorry.
We heard real horror stories during the consultation, when we went out to meet people and when we met people in the Parliament. Every MSP from all the parties—not just me—heard the story of the blind gentleman who was walking along a pavement. His stick snapped against a lorry that was parked on the pavement, and he was absolutely stranded on the pavement for hours, until somebody came along and asked whether they could help him off it.
We heard horror stories involving people with their kids in buggies and prams who had to go off pavements to walk along streets.
I thank the Government, including the cabinet secretary’s predecessor, for looking at my bill and taking it on board, because the issue matters to every single person. It matters more to vulnerable, disabled and older people and people with young families. The bill gives them the independence to be able to move about that every single one of us has. It makes them the same as us and ensures that those people can get out and about.
We heard horror stories of people not being able to get out of the house because they were frightened. People with wheelchairs would get out of the house and come to a dropped kerb with a car parked in front of it. They could not even get to the shops.
Members should look at the bill in its entirety, please. They might not like some of it—indeed, I do not particularly like some of it—but it is important for ordinary people out there to get justice for a change.
We have talked about car owners. I do not want punitive measures; I want education for car owners, because I am sure that they do not want to punish vulnerable people and people who cannot get on to or off pavements. We see people outside with guide dogs with obstacles in their way. Pavements should be for people.
We have worked for years to get the legislation through the Parliament. Please vote for it and ensure that people out there who are suffering and have horrific stories to tell us can get about and say, “I can go out today, and I know that I won’t be stuck on a pavement and that I won’t have to go on the road.”
I cannot wait to see the bill enacted.
15:34Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
I have watched and worked on the Transport (Scotland) Bill from the moment it was introduced in Parliament. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I worked to rectify its limitations with the rest of the committee. I thank all the members of that committee and the clerks for their diligence.
Many of the provisions regarding LEZs, bus franchising and pavement parking have been improved, so that they will work for Scotland and improve our streets, roads and environment. My Conservative colleagues and I support them.
There were high expectations for the bill. However, suddenly, at stage 2, came the Greens’ workplace parking levy—a proposal that was the result of backroom dealing with the Government. It was a deal that was done in order to get the Government’s budget through, at the expense of people who work to support their families and Scotland.
I live in a rural area; I know that transport is critical. People want properly maintained roads, more reliable buses, trains that run on time and do not skip their stations, new and reliable ferries that are built on time and on budget, and airports that do not close before the last flight has landed. This Government, which has been in power for 12 years, has not delivered those things. However, it has delivered a charge that, due to the lack of central Government funding, many councils will be forced to use.
The car parking tax is a tax on workers: it is a regressive tax that will hurt low-paid people. It will hit shift workers, the police, fire and rescue staff, charities, health and care workers, residential home workers and vets, to name but a few. It will not hit high-paid workers, but everyday normal Scots who go to work to support their families. The Government cannot hide behind the fact that whether to impose a levy is a decision for local authorities. If we do not fund authorities, they will have no option but to use it.
Many SNP members feel as uncomfortable about the tax as I do. Initially, they were prepared to speak out, but where are they now? They are invisible and are not on the side of the people who will face paying that tax.
The hypocrisy is that the tax is being sold as an environmental tax, when it is not. Will those who can afford to pay the tax and who ride around in company cars that are driven by others change their behaviour? I think not.
The people of Scotland wanted better roads and better transport networks, but the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which promised so much, instead punishes them with an unfair tax.
The Scottish Conservatives would have supported the bill. I wanted to support it, until it was hijacked by people who want to punish workers. The public transport system that those workers rely on is not working
We lodged amendments that would have reduced the harm that would be caused by the workplace parking levy, but the heartless Government voted against every one of them. The SNP Government is intent on introducing an unfair and regressive tax, and it does not care about the damage that it will do.
I will not support policies that penalise hard-working Scots. For that reason, sadly, I will be forced to vote against the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
15:37Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
At committee stage and in the Parliament, the bill’s passage has been a marathon. I wonder what we have ended up with.
I thank the committee’s convener and the committee for their incredibly hard work. I also thank Colin Smyth and Jamie Greene for championing the cause against the workplace parking levy.
There are things in the bill that I agree with—for example, municipal bus ownership and the importance of improving air quality. I would have liked my amendments at stage 2 to have been accepted. They included amendments on the extension of half fares on buses and trains to 16 and 17-year-olds, but that was not to be.
My most serious concern about the bill is the lack of scrutiny of some provisions. That has exercised me, and we will be the poorer for it. It was a mistake in respect of the reputation of Parliament. It might also have consequences for some of the provisions. Two members’ bills have been made into one piece of legislation—for one of which no stage 1 evidence was taken, and with only a few weeks to hear evidence at stage 2.
There is a completely new section on the workplace parking levy. That is an unfortunate precedent; I appeal to ministers not to allow it to happen again. There will also be consequences of both the issues that I raised earlier in relation to keeper liability. I will not cover all the points that I made previously on exemptions to the workplace parking levy, which is a tax that is designed to get people out of their cars. The inconsistency in exempting national health service workers but not police officers is extraordinary. The inconsistency in having a national anti-poverty strategy but not exempting the people whom we are trying to help is beyond me.
I do not think that due regard has been given to shift workers or women workers. The evidence shows that women will probably fare worse from a workplace parking levy being introduced. Helen Martin from the Scottish Trades Union Congress said in evidence:
“As a working mother ... I was always chasing my tail; I was always working through my lunch ... The idea of suddenly adding in a train journey or getting a train ... and then a bus would have been untenable for me.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 29 May 2019; c 13.]
I would like to hear some clarification from the minister at the end of the debate. I have asked him about this before. Will money that is raised by local authorities be ring fenced for public transport projects? I think that the minister said that it would be ring fenced for public transport strategies. As I have said previously, I would have had at least some respect for the policy if the money that is raised was to be ring fenced.
In the case of Glasgow, it will be decades before we have a transport system that is really fit for application of a workplace levy. In previous forums I used the example of a constituent of mine who cannot get a bus from the Queen Elizabeth university hospital at 6 o’clock at night, after visiting her daughter, to go home to the south side of Glasgow. That is the state of the public transport system in Glasgow—it is not ready, and there are not choices for people.
Even Sustrans Scotland came to the committee and said that there should be exemptions for low-paid workers from the levy. But not this Scottish Government—it does not think that there should be exemptions for low-paid workers. The levy is a tax on workers.
I do not think that local authorities are likely to make any further exemptions, because they have been advised to make the scheme a simplified scheme.
The Parliament will regret putting the keeper liability provision in the bill. There will be casualties from that, because we did not scrutinise that provision properly, I am sad to say.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
I call Colin Smyth to wind up for Labour. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon. I have forgotten somebody. No, I am right and the clerk is wrong. I ask you. We can’t get the staff. Colin Smyth will wind up for Labour, please.
15:41Colin Smyth
The debate has done little to allay Labour’s concerns that the Transport (Scotland) Bill is, in many ways, a missed opportunity.
We support the introduction of low-emission zones, but an opportunity was missed to strengthen them. We support the ban on pavement parking but, again, an opportunity was lost to close potential loopholes.
Labour has worked hard to improve the bill. I place on record my thanks to my researcher Meg for her amazing work in developing our positive and constructive alternatives. It is her birthday today—what a way this is to spend it.
Labour made sensible and constructive proposals—for example, to make public transport more accessible to disabled people and to properly enforce a ban on parking in mandatory cycle lanes. On the day when the SNP voted for a car parking tax, it voted against making cycling to work safer. Go work that one out.
As I said in my opening speech, Labour welcomes the decision by the SNP to drop its opposition to Labour’s call to lift the ban on councils running bus services, thereby empowering our local authorities to play their part in stemming plummeting passenger numbers and rocketing fares. The potential to expand municipal ownership is one of the most important changes that the bill will now make, thanks to pressure from Labour. It is a chance to move away from the fragmented privatised bus system and for councils to take services back into public hands, so that they are run for passengers, not profit.
We now need the political will to put into practice those powers and others that are being introduced through the bill, such as for bus service improvement plans and franchises.
We in Labour will play our part through local councils right across Scotland, and I hope that others—including the SNP Government—will do the same, by properly resourcing our councils to deliver bus services for our communities, instead of voting through budget after budget that cuts those resources.
If we really want people to use cars less, we need transformational change in public transport. That is how less car use will be achieved. It will not be achieved by a regressive car park tax, which was an afterthought in the bill—a proposal that the Government tried to sneak through as a late amendment, thereby igniting a backlash that I believe will undermine public support for proper environmental action for decades to come.
No wonder people are angry. What signal did it send when, fresh from voting for a car park tax on workers, SNP ministers went home from Holyrood last night in their fleet of chauffeur-driven cars parked outside the Parliament that were paid for by the same workers? Between them, the MSPs who voted against Labour’s amendments to scrap the tax last night have claimed £304,342 from the taxpayer in car hire, mileage, taxis and car parking. Yes. Car parking.
Even though they were determined to drive through the tax, those MSPs could have tried to make it fairer. They could have supported Labour’s amendments to exempt electric cars and low-paid workers. Instead, as things stand, a company boss could be asked to pay the same as a company cleaner. A chief executive of a health board, who is on more than £100,000 a year, will be exempt, but a carer who works for a charity on the minimum wage will have to stump up. That is simply not fair.
Many of my constituents travel to cities for work from rural areas that have poor transport links. Under the car park tax, they will pay hundreds of pounds to a neighbouring council—Glasgow City Council or the City of Edinburgh Council—but not a penny will be spent on improving public transport in the council area where they live, and where they do not have transport, because of a lack of strategic thought by the Government.
That is why Labour lodged amendments to the bill to scrap the car park tax. And it is why, when the bill passes—as it will, with the votes of the SNP and Greens—we will make it clear that, in our manifesto for the next Scottish Parliament election, there will be a clear commitment: Labour will scrap the car park tax.
17:45Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)
I close for the Scottish Conservatives on the Transport (Scotland) Bill with a sense of disappointment, as we will not be able to vote for it. Fundamentally, it is a good bill, improved by the extensive amendment that has taken place. We believe that low-emission zone schemes are a good thing, and that they could prove fundamental in tackling climate change. We are supportive of local franchising, but believe that it should be done in a considered manner, with local authorities being clear with their electorates about what the long-term impact on local public transport links and council budgets will be. We support smart ticketing, but feel that ministers could have taken a more ambitious approach. And I am pleased to see Parliament taking action on tackling obstructive parking, which is detrimental to local residents and particularly affects people with disabilities or visual impairments. Those are positive provisions that could have a significant impact on our transport framework.
However, we cannot vote for a bill in which a car park tax has appeared. I choose my words, because of course the provision was not there originally. Questions have to be asked about a process that sees Parliament agree to the principles of a bill that then has an entire tax regime inserted into it.
Incidentally—to pick up on Jamie Greene’s point of order from earlier, which was spot on—I have four minutes to speak on primary legislation to which hundreds of amendments were lodged, into which a whole new tax was inserted without evidence to support it, and on which the final debate has been significantly curtailed. If there is no time for interventions and challenges, can we really say that we are debating?
The car park tax is a measure that has simply not been thought through, with no economic analysis or consultation with businesses or stakeholders before it was proposed. Yesterday, Murdo Fraser flagged that although the amendment that introduced it looks like a Green amendment, it appears that the idea was first put on the table by the finance secretary. That makes sense, because it appears from Mike Rumble’s comments that if evidence been taken at stage 1, we would have learned that the tax does not lead to the behaviour change that is, apparently, the underlying principle. In fact, the evidence suggests that it might lead to increased congestion. The clear implication is that it is revenue generation dressed up as green virtue signalling.
As Edward Mountain said, that is, of course, the answer to why the Government is so keen to get the provision through, and to say that it is a local authority power. It allows the SNP to make ever more swingeing cuts to local authority funding and to say, “Well, we gave you the power to raise taxes on your people, so you can’t complain.” Although, as Alexander Burnett pointed out yesterday, it is not necessarily “your people”, because, for example, many people in Aberdeenshire drive to work in Aberdeen, where any parking levy would be collected and spent.
As Pauline McNeill said in her powerful contribution, the people who will be affected are those who, perhaps because of shift patterns or the nature of their work, may not have a safe, reliable and affordable public transport alternative. They have no option but to use their cars, and yet, for the privilege, they will get hit with a tax of £500 per year.
Mike Rumbles was right to say that it is the SNP’s right to team up and vote it through. However, that is why we lodged amendments to exempt various groups. I find it utterly shameful that not one—not one—SNP member agreed that we should exempt the police from a tax on doing their job, and that not one felt that teachers or, for that matter, school caterers or teaching assistants should not have to pay, even where they drive in from outside of a city because the public transport is insufficient. Yesterday, Gillian Martin intervened on me. I know that she knows, and cares deeply, about the lack of teachers in the north-east, yet she voted not to exempt them. Not one SNP member felt that we should exempt the military or Royal National Lifeboat Institution volunteers. That is staggering, because, surely, they cannot believe that an RNLI volunteer should pay £500 per year to save lives at sea.
This is a good bill, but in one of its most fundamental, far-reaching and prejudicial provisions, it falls woefully short. For that reason, we cannot support it at decision time.
15:49Michael Matheson
I have listened with interest to the contributions to this debate on what is a significant piece of legislation. The bill will give provision to a range of important policy areas—for example, low-emission zones, which will help to drive up air quality improvement, particularly in our cities. John Finnie highlighted the health challenges associated with poor air quality that we must tackle. We want Scotland to have the best air quality of any European country, and low-emission zones have an important part to play in achieving that. I am delighted by the way in which Glasgow City Council has shown leadership by creating the first low-emission zone, which has been in operation since the turn of the year and is demonstrating already the benefits that can come from the LEZ approach. The bill’s new provisions with give further support to that approach.
The bill also has provisions for improving bus services and driving up bus patronage through the bus service improvement partnerships and franchising. There is cross-party support for empowering local transport authorities to be able to look at how services should be delivered in their communities and giving them the discretionary powers to provide passenger services themselves. The bill also has provisions to improve smart ticketing and ensure that we have a transport system that can adapt and manage new technology in a way that helps to improve connectivity and journeys.
Of course, the bill’s provisions around parking will provide significant improvements. The issues addressed by the bill on which I have had most contact from constituents are those of pavement parking and double parking, which have been a problem for people for decades. I acknowledge the tremendous, concerted work that many MSPs have done on those issues but acknowledge in particular the work that Sandra White has done over the years in pushing for solutions to the problem. In addition, the amendments that Mike Rumbles introduced at stage 2 improved the bill’s provisions on parking. The bill has been strengthened by the parliamentary process and members’ willingness to work on improving the its provisions and ensuring that it is aligned with the key principles set out in the draft national transport strategy, which will take forward our transport priorities for the next 20 years.
There is also provision in the bill for traffic regulation matters. The cycling sector and local authorities raised issues regarding difficulties with the existing system, which is unduly bureaucratic and compromises progress. I will use the proposed review to consider how to improve that situation.
The bill also provides a modest discretionary power for local authorities to look at the provision of workplace parking. Many members sought to introduce exemptions to the workplace parking provisions, but the reality is that they were not concerned about the substance of the exemptions but simply trying to make the proposed system unworkable in order to frustrate it. The key element is that the bill will allow local authorities to apply every discretion to workplace parking provisions that the Tories, the Labour Party or anyone else might want. In fact, it is a bit rich for the Tories to portray themselves as standing up for the workers. There is one thing that the Tories do not do and that is stand up for the workers.
Voting against the bill means that members will be voting against all the improvements that will come from it. It is a good bill and it deserves the support of Parliament tonight.
10 October 2019
Final vote on the Bill
After the final discussion of the Bill, MSPs vote on whether they think it should become law.
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
There are three questions today. The first question is, that motion S5M-19335, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Abstentions
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 29, Abstentions 18.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that the Transport (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The Presiding Officer
The next question is, that motion S5M-19336, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 97, Against 0, Abstentions 6.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill.
The Presiding Officer
The final question is, that motion S5M-19269, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill financial resolution, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill, agrees to—
(a) any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act, and
(b) any charge or payment in relation to which Rule 9.12.4 of the Standing Orders applies arising in consequence of the Act.
Meeting closed at 17:18.10 October 2019