Chamber and committees

I have no further questions.

Two years ago, the Parliament passed the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which contained the power to levy a car park tax. I and my colleagues tried to amend the provisions to make them more equitable by exempting the police, care workers, shift workers and so on and by ensuring that those who did not live or work close to public transport would not be caught. As Graham Simpson has rightly pointed out, the Government at the time was not with us on those amendments or the final form of the bill, and the legislation was therefore passed. We have now been presented with these regulations and Mr Simpson’s motion to annul.

I have listened very carefully to the evidence that has been given by the minister to the committee recently. I have read the letter that she sent to us last week, and I have listened to her answers this morning. What strikes me is the lack of detail that persists in the scheme, to the potential detriment of so many people. I find that particularly concerning given that, as I mentioned earlier, only five months ago, Transport Scotland specifically acknowledged the requirement for guidance and the minister acknowledges that such guidance does not exist. We have heard that there will be no cap on what might be charged, and nothing will prevent employers from passing on the cost to employees. Indeed, the evidence that the committee has received suggests that employers will do that.

The Government wants to drive behaviour change, but it could not give me a figure as to what it thinks might achieve that change. I listened to the minister’s response to Mr Simpson’s remarks. The minister can call in an unreasonable charge, but she has no idea, or is not prepared to set out, what she believes an unreasonable charge to be. What is the definition of that?

We heard that no modelling has been done on the impact of decanting on to surrounding streets or, as my friend Ms Lennon pointed out, on the impact on lower-paid workers. There have been no clear answers on how the funds that are generated will benefit rural areas and/or the areas in which those who pay live but do not work. I am thinking about, for example, people commuting from a rural town into a city. It also appears that no one has checked whether it is legally competent to tax the same piece of land twice under two separate heads.

The regulations do not address those significant concerns, nor do they address many of the others that we have heard today. The lack of progress in addressing those issues is highly concerning. Fiona Hyslop rightly made the point about timing. I have no doubt that doing the work during the pandemic would have been challenging, but I cannot understand the urgency of forcing through what appears to me to be an undercooked and underprepared scheme in such a hurry.

The committee has heard at some length about the deposit return scheme, which has been significantly delayed due to the underlying lack of detail and rigour. As Graham Simpson said, some members of the committee will welcome the car park tax, but no one welcomes bad legislation.

I ask the committee to heed the convener’s question right at the start of the meeting, to which I am afraid I did not hear a proper answer. What happens if we vote for the motion to annul today? Voting for the motion will allow the minister to take the project away, have a rethink, address the significant concerns that she has heard about, find answers to the questions that the committee has posed and come back with a scheme that works, that does not risk destroying businesses and that does not penalise the lowest-paid workers. My view is that we should get it right rather than get it rushed.

For those reasons, I shall vote for the motion to annul.

I want to go back to a question that I asked earlier. You are pushing a lot of this on to local authorities, and I understand why, but Transport Scotland has said

“Supporting regulations and guidance will be necessary to provide national consistency on key elements of the scheme”.

You told me earlier that work on the guidance has not even been started. When can local authorities expect it to be finalised and produced?

You have not modelled it. You either have or have not modelled it.

I am listening carefully to what you are saying, Mr Ruskell. Earlier, you asked the minister a good question about the modelling that had been done about whether businesses would come back to town and city centres. However, we did not get an answer on the modelling. Instead, we heard about an aspiration.

You have listened to the session this morning. Many questions were asked about the modelling and data that is relied on. Surely, you can accept that that data is lacking and that it would be better to work out what the impact on lower-paid workers and on the rural communities looks like and come back later once the data has been corrected.

It is brief. Mark Ruskell asked about modelling, but I am not sure that we got an answer, so I will ask it again. What modelling has the Scottish Government done about when employees refuse to use a staff car park to avoid the cost and instead decant to the surrounding streets? Does the modelling show that that is a possibility and, if so, to what extent? What will the impact be on local residents if that happens?

That is not a question to put to me, minister. We are not talking about trusting local authorities; we are talking about the Scottish Government bringing in a scheme and apparently failing to model its impact. I think that you have just confirmed that the modelling has not been done. Unless you are confirming that it has been done by the Scottish Government, I will hand back to the convener.

You just said that it did exist.

That is extraordinary.

In that case, I will hand back to the convener.