���˿���

You said in your opening comments that the instrument had been delayed because of Covid. As I have pointed out, businesses are still struggling. Why do you think that now is the right time to introduce the instrument?

Will the minister give way?

It is not a matter of not trusting local councils. Fiona Hyslop helpfully mentioned our previous local government manifesto. I was the author of that, so I agree with every word of it. We will wait and see what transpires for the next local government elections.

It is not a matter of not trusting local councils. The minister has the power to introduce exemptions, and she could set those out. I actually made that point during the passage of the 2019 act. I tried to get an exemption into the act for shift workers and people who do not live or work near public transport. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. That will be a real concern if the measure goes through.

I will end there, because we have probably spent long enough on this and we have explored all the issues. I will press the motion to annul.

I have just one quick question, and possibly a follow-up question, depending on the answer. I feel that we have already had a full debate, even though the debate is yet to come.

Minister, can you confirm that, under the 2019 act, you have powers to set out in regulations further exemptions beyond those that already exist?

I certainly will. I have a concern about timing. I have to say that I am fundamentally opposed to the scheme, but I accept that there are members and parties in the Parliament who do not share that view. However, they might share the view that the timing is wrong. Therefore, the timing is important.

Ms Hyslop and the minister have referred to Glasgow City Council’s view that any scheme could take three years to implement, but I am not sure what that is based on. It seems to be a figure that has been plucked out of thin air. Clearly, implementation would take time, but three years sounds like a long time to me. I have not seen any justification for that timeframe.

Timing is important. The Scottish Retail Consortium’s director, David Lonsdale, has said:

“Workplace parking levies are a charter for extra cost and complexity”.

He went on to say that the schemes will

“see firms taxed twice for the parking places they provide for staff, on top of the business rates already paid on those spaces”,

which goes back to the point that Mr Kerr made. That is crucial, as companies with car parks pay business rates on those spaces. The scheme would be introducing an extra layer of tax on top of what companies already pay.

The Scottish Chambers of Commerce has also come out in opposition. Liz Cameron, the chief executive, said that

“businesses across Scotland will now face a postcode lottery”

as different councils take different decisions. She fears that some

“local authorities ... may now seek to implement this levy as a revenue stream rather than for purely environmental reasons.”

The parent act says that councils must have “a local transport strategy” and that the car park tax must go towards helping with that strategy. That means that the policy does not have to be about reducing motor vehicle travel, and it does not have to be about improving public transport; the levy could be used for absolutely anything in the strategy. That means that it is, or could be, purely a money-making scheme. That is the concern that has been shared by Liz Cameron. It is all rather woolly. It is not, as Mr Ruskell would like, money that could be used to improve public transport. We would all like to see public transport improved, but that is not specifically what the levy would be for. It could be used for absolutely anything in the local transport strategy.

The other point made by David Lonsdale is that the levy is a tax on top of another tax. Firms are already paying once. Why should they pay twice?

Two weeks ago, I raised a question about there not being a cap on what councils could charge. The minister gave the entirely accurate answer that there is no cap, but she has not yet said what level she thinks would be a reasonable charge. I do not know whether the minister wishes to come in at this point—she is speaking, and I am happy to let her in now.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will draw my remarks to a close, convener. I know that you are up against time, but Ms Lennon asked me a direct question, which I will try to address.

I want public transport to be improved for everyone. That should come first. It would encourage people to use public transport, not their cars, I hope.

I have real concern about the regulations. If we accept that the parliamentary numbers appear to mean that the regulations will go through, the minister should try to fix the flaws in them. She should introduce exemptions, which are not in the regulations. She has the power to do that. She also probably ought to set out in guidance what an acceptable level of charge would be.

I do not want the scheme to be introduced at all, but the parliamentary numbers are what they are. Ms Gilruth and Mr Ruskell can get the regulations through. If Ms Gilruth decides to go ahead with the scheme, there are things that she could do to improve it.

This is the wrong time to introduce the scheme. It is an attack on employers and bad for employees, jobs and the recovery from the pandemic. It is the wrong time for businesses and staff. The scheme should be stopped.

I move,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Workplace Parking Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2022 be annulled.

I am not sure whether the member has the 2019 act in front of her. I do, and the minister herself has confirmed that she has the power—if she chooses to use it—to create further exemptions in regulations. Does the member think that the minister should do that?

Oh, come on.

Will the minister give way?