Chamber and committees

No—I would like to make some progress.

As for the concerns that have been raised about the impacts on different types of businesses and workers, they will be for local authorities to consider, consult on and assess. The 2019 act gives authorities the power to shape their own schemes by specifying, for example, the time of day when they will apply. That is actually quite important. Monica Lennon referred to vulnerable workers, and we need to look at what types of workers are working at which times of day—for example, women who might be working in night-time industries, hospitality and so on—geographical boundaries and local exemptions to ensure that councils have the flexibility and discretion to support positive outcomes. As the committee heard two weeks ago in my response to Ms Hyslop, two or more local authorities might want to work together to create their own scheme.

We have skirted around the climate change emergency today, but I do want to come back to it.

I am prepared to be corrected by officials, but I think that I have those powers.

Thank you for the opportunity to make another opening statement, to provide further evidence in support of the Workplace Parking Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2022 and to debate the motion to annul the Scottish statutory instrument that was lodged by Graham Simpson.

As I outlined during my evidence to the committee just two weeks ago, the power for local authorities to implement workplace parking licensing schemes was provided by Parliament under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, following an extensive evidence session by the committee’s predecessor committee. Further regulations and guidance are now necessary in order for local authorities to implement such schemes.

The 2019 act reflects that the power to design schemes based on local circumstances, including setting the licensing charge, rests with local authorities. The act also reflects the key themes of accountability and transparency. It specifies what a local authority must set out as part of any proposed workplace parking levy scheme. That includes the licensing charge that would be payable per workplace parking space per annum.

The 2019 act places robust requirements on local authorities to set out the scheme proposal, including the licensing charge, and to carry out consultation and an impact assessment before making any scheme. The act includes provisions for either the local authority or the Scottish ministers to initiate an independent examination of a proposed scheme if they consider that to be appropriate.

Workplace parking licensing schemes have the potential to encourage the use of more sustainable travel while raising revenue that will be used to improve sustainable public transport. Such schemes also support our commitment to reduce car kilometres travelled by 20 per cent by 2030 as part of our climate change goals, which were supported by all parties when the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill was passed.

Councils in England and Wales have had such powers for more than a decade, during which time the Conservative Government has been content to retain the power for councils in England to introduce such schemes.

As I discussed two weeks ago, we have seen how workplace parking licensing schemes have supported climate change goals in Nottingham, which has among the highest rates of public transport use in the country, with an associated fall of 40 million car miles over the past 15 years. Other English cities including Leicester and Oxford are developing their own local schemes.

First, Mr Simpson’s motion is attempting to deny Scottish councils the same powers that are provided to English councils by his Westminster colleagues. Secondly, his motion is at odds with his previous statement that

“decisions should be taken as locally as possible and that power should lie with politicians elected as locally as possible.”

Thirdly, nothing in the regulations that are before the committee will have any impact on the level of licensing charge. That issue was raised during the evidence session two weeks ago. The decision to put that power in the hands of local authorities, following local consultation and assessment of impact, was made by the Parliament in primary legislation in 2019, and it cannot be changed by the regulations.

The motion to annul is misplaced, inconsistent and at odds with policy that was agreed by Parliament some three years ago. If councils choose to develop their workplace parking licensing schemes as part of their transport strategies to reduce congestion and air pollution and to invest in sustainable transport, they will be accountable for that choice—not me, as the minister, or the Scottish Government. I urge the committee to give councils the appropriate regulatory tools to support such decisions.

My officials and I will be happy to answer any further questions that the committee has on the regulations.

There is quite a lot to unpack in that. First, on the legislation that was passed in 2019, I discussed that in my response to the convener. I might bring in my officials on the specifics of the SSI, but my understanding is that it will give local authorities the power to enact the legislation.

On the timing, it is worth pointing out that this is not going to happen overnight. Glasgow City Council suggests that it could take up to three years to establish a scheme, so it will not happen quickly. There have been criticisms of the measure, given the situation for businesses at the moment, but that provides a level of safeguard. We do not know where we will be in three years’ time, but it is important to have a sustainable recovery that takes cognisance of our climate change obligations. We must not shy away from that in recovering from the pandemic.

Ms Hyslop asked about the reporter’s role. The 2019 act sets out that either the local authority that proposes the workplace parking scheme or the Scottish ministers may appoint a reporter to examine the proposal. It would not be routine for ministers to do that, as it might delay schemes unnecessarily—it would slow the process, because a local authority could not proceed until examination of any scheme was complete.

However, it is important to say that ministers could initiate an examination by appointing a reporter if a concern arose. Two weeks ago, we had a conversation about the level of charging. If the feeling in a community was that the charge was too high, the reporter could address that in the examination of the scheme. That safeguard has been built into how the system will operate.

The regulations set out a process for conducting the examination that is heavily based on regulations that govern the examination process for low-emission zones. We expect that the reporter would be sourced from the planning and environmental appeals division—I think that I mentioned that in my evidence to the committee two weeks ago, if not in my letter.

I am trying to cover every point that Ms Hyslop raised. She made an important point about consultation. It is essential to the local requirements for local authorities to be responsible and accountable for schemes. Local authorities have an obligation and a responsibility to consult their communities on how a scheme would operate.

Ms Hyslop gave examples of park-and-ride schemes and talked about the impact of city region deals. Local authorities would absolutely be required to look up and look out at how their schemes would impact on other local authority areas and, equally, to tie their local transport strategy plans to what they want to get out of a scheme.

Workplace parking schemes will give local authorities additional revenue to invest in their local transport strategies. That is hugely important, because it empowers local authorities. I hope that the committee will vote to support the regulations, but I appreciate that we will debate that.

I do not know whether my officials want to speak about the specifics of the technical detail.

On the first point, I make it very clear that the delay related to resource in Government. We had to redirect vast swathes of civil servants because they had to deal with the emergency legislation that, as the member will recall, we had to pass back in 2020, not because this was a bad idea.

I am going back to my previous role for a moment but, on the issue of businesses and whether this is the right time to introduce the regulations, Mr Simpson will recall that the UK Government decided not to extend the transition period during the worst excesses of the pandemic and instead ploughed ahead with a hard Brexit, which impacted on and devastated many businesses across Scotland. I therefore find it quite difficult to take lessons from the Conservatives on what would be the right time to introduce legislation such as this that will have an impact on businesses.

To some extent, the Conservatives have hidden behind Covid with regard to some of the impacts of Brexit, and I very much hope that they are not suggesting that we hide behind Covid with regard to the climate emergency. We have heard from Mr Ruskell about the need for urgency on this matter. We have to get on, and the workplace parking levy is a way of working with local authorities to achieve our climate change ambitions.

I think that I answered that question in my letter to the committee—to which I direct Mr Kerr. We say that,

“On the issue of behaviour change based on whether employers choose to pass on the charge to employees”,

we looked at Nottingham City Council with regard to modelling. That council also made a submission to the previous session’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee as part of that committee’s evidence gathering for stage 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. As I said in my letter,

“In its evidence, Nottingham City Council showed that the supply of Liable Workplace Parking Places decreased by 17.5% prior to licensing being introduced as employers sought to limit their liability, with a more gradual reduction in the number of workplace parking places provided by employers since introduction. Nottingham City Council also provided evidence showing a number of major employers moved into, or consolidated to, city centre locations with good public transport accessibility”.

I appreciate that Mr Kerr asked the same question two weeks ago, but on the broader point, I say that it is quite difficult to model a scheme that has not yet existed in Scotland. I therefore think that the best way that local authorities can learn is by modelling with regard to what happened in Nottingham City Council.

My letter covers some of the specifics in relation to Mr Kerr’s question, but I note that one of the submissions that the committee received ahead of today’s meeting—I think that it was from Transform Scotland—contains statistics on the need for traffic demand management. I do not know whether that goes some of the way towards explaining, or giving more context to, the rationale behind the policy, the increase in costs associated with public transport compared with driving and the need, therefore, to encourage that behaviour change.

Mr Kerr will appreciate that I was not in post when the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was being debated. My officials might want to say more about the specifics of the modelling, but it was addressed in my letter to the committee just two weeks ago.