us, is going to suggest that there will be a workplace parking levy? So would he accept that we're at least aiming at the same thing and the question is do we have a more centralist approach and decide everything at the centre or do we allow local authorities to make these decisions? I appreciate the tone and candor of which Mr Mason asked that question and I appreciate where he's coming from. But again, for too many assumptions in the statement that he's making, he's saying that no rural authority will introduce a levy. How does he know that? Local authorities are by default political beings and they may choose to do so. And I would say they shouldn't have that choice because of the effect that it will have on their work. I mean it's turning into a lengthy debate. I'm trying to be polite, Mr convener, but it's entirely up to you on time.  One more and then try and wrap it up to allow other members to come in. That may be appropriate. I want to give more advantages because if other members want to speak to the amendments in this group they're welcome to put their hand up and speak to them. I think I've made my point and I would ask members in the committee to reflect upon I think the sensible list of exemptions and give it some genuine thought and please do not vote against exempting some of these workers. It's a great thing to do so please join us in exempting them. Thank you, Jamie. I'm now going to call on Mike Rumbles to speak to amendment 16e and any other amendments in the group. Thanks convener. I will start by saying John Finnie in his introduction kept saying, he said it several times that the levee is on the employer and he's absolutely right. He's absolutely right and I agree with him. Sorry, early on you did. Or maybe that was an aside, John. It's a levee on the employer but there's nothing to stop in this bill for the levee to be passed on to the employee so I think dancing on the head of a pin here. I've also heard him talk again about the principle of localism. I support the principle of localism but I also support what we're supposed to do right in this Parliament. Our job as members of the committee is to make good law and I'm very exercised about this because I think that is a really important job that we do. We all come here from political backgrounds. I happen to be a Liberal Democrat but my job here is to make sure that we pass law which is fit for purpose. It's quite obvious to me that with all the amendments down here we intend to try and improve the bill and it's a great disappointment as I say that whatever amendment is being put forward there is an instruction that this will not be allowed. This is why when the Parliament was set up it was set up without a revising chamber. It was set up I see Stuart Stevenson shaking his head. I was here 20 years ago at Mr Stevenson at the foundation of this Parliament. I ask you not to do conversations across the table. I'm responding to what Mr Stevenson said. Mr Stevenson made a comment while he was sitting down without intervening. I suggest you push on with the point that you made. I remember when we first took our seats here 20 years ago and there was a big debate about whether we should have had a revising chamber and it was decided that we shouldn't have one because the work of the committee was important and the job of the committee members would be to scrutinise the legislation particularly put forward by the Government. We have a bizarre situation where because of a political agreement this amendment that John Finnie is putting forward cannot be touched. I mean this strikes at the very heart of what this Parliament was designed to do and what we're doing is wrong and I'm saying so. No, I've listened to everybody. I haven't intervened other people. I've listened to what other people are saying and I'm deeply disappointed by this whole shameful process in our parliamentary system and I would appeal to the Government to the Cabinet Secretary to think hard on this and to come back and be prepared at stage 3 to accept reasonable constructive amendments that are put forward as us doing our job. The point about my amendments in this section are if we are going to have national exemptions for instance the national health service to me it's logical that you also look round and say what other national exemptions should you have and try to be constructive again I've put some amendments in to give one example of the police service which is a national service and I particularly thought that John Finnie would appreciate that from his work experience and how important this would be needed so I think it's a false idea that okay we can have a national exemption for the national health service but we can't have a national exemption for anybody else that's just not logical where is the logic in this this is bad law we shouldn't be doing this I'm really frustrated and disappointed with this whole process Thank you very much Mike I'm now going to call on Liam Kerr to speak to amendments 16x and other amendments in the group Liam I'm grateful to the committee for the opportunity this morning I've lodged several amendments which exempt key groups from the workplace park in Levy for reasons well articulated by Colin Smith MSP earlier I strongly associate myself with Jamie Greene's comments at the outset In brief, amendment 16x and 16y would see staff working at the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland exempted from the scheme amendment 16z covers those working in the criminal justice social work services which are carried out by local authorities amendment 16aa covers those working for the Scottish prison service is that these are critical services required to keep the public safe to maintain law and order and promote rehabilitation and it is my view that they should be exempted from the scheme and therefore I move those amendments in my name I'm now going to call on Maurice Corry to speak to amendment 16ab and other amendments in the group Maurice Thank you for the opportunity of coming to speak in support of these amendments The Majesty's Coast Guard service is on a national safety service It is on a notice to move an immediate notice Coast Guard officers have to be in the field Coast Guard ground officers in control have to be available and all need to be available 24 hours and the necessity of communication of working with other emergency and blue light services and therefore quite often many of these are in rural areas and there is absolutely no way at 2 o'clock in the morning when the balloon goes up and they have to be there on time and available to go forward so I move this amendment that they be exempt from any parking charges accordingly Thank you Maurice and I would normally call Alexander Stewart to speak to a member at 16b but I believe Jamie Greene you are briefly going to speak to her I didn't cover that Life Boat Service I won't come back to you Mr Corry one more time No now One more time Again, similarly to Coast Guard Service this is a national service it is critical to our safety of our coasts we are a maritime nation also the other thing is that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a charity and therefore there is no way a charity of that size can stand any charges being absorbed by itself if it's not passing them on to the crews so absolutely adamant that this is the crews Life Boats are protected the Life Boat based administration and support and operational staff are protected and also it is necessary for the communications to be with them to be working with other emergency services they have to be on call and immediate notice to move and therefore it's impossible to lie on public transport they need to be available to take their cars to work Thank you very much Maurice and now I come to call amendment 16b normally this would be Alexander Stewart to move it but I think Jamie Greene to move it on his behalf Just briefly I think we've covered a lot of ground already I would pay attention particularly to 16w which it seeks to exempt care workers again I cannot for life me think why we would want care workers as defined to have to pay to work on social hours often at low pay and difficult circumstances I think it's the right thing to do I absolutely support Alexander Stewart's amendment to exempt those workers from the levy I hope other members will agree with me His other amendment I believe is regarding those who work at Scotland's airports as we all know Scotland relies very heavily on aviation connectivity to service our islands I don't see why an air traffic controller or a security worker at Campbelltown or Barra or Kirkwall or Stornaway should have to pay a levy simply for coming and doing what I would consider a lifeline duty to service our remote and island communities and again I would appeal to members who have these types of workplaces in their regions or constituencies to think very carefully about voting against exempting these places Thank you Jamie, the only member so far that's indicated to wish to speak is Stewart Stevenson Thank you very much This is clearly an area where there are genuine and deeply held different viewpoints and that's entirely right and proper I think however members of this committee should be very careful about attributing to others how they have come to their decision based on no knowledge whatsoever in my personal case of how I have reached the decisions that I am exercising democratically as we vote on amendments today I did not start off from a point of view of uncritical support of this like others I have engaged in quite robust debates with a range of people and come to the views that I have and I ask that members respect my individual process and the individual process of anyone around this table holding contrary views to me of views as me and us as individuals and I think it's entirely improper convener for the process by which us as individuals have come to our viewpoints to be traduced in the way that I have heard now turning to more substantial matters convener I think the important thing is to say are local authorities going to behave responsibly or irresponsibly in the discharge of the duties that we are looking to give them under this provision it's not as if we can ask that question in a vacuum such powers have been available to local authorities south of the border for decades so we have a model that we can look at to see if local authorities behave irresponsibly in this regard now if members in this committee and members of this Parliament wish to say that Scottish authorities are simply irresponsible compared to their English counterparts will I invite them to say that on the record I don't happen to believe that that's the case not because they're Scottish but simply because local authorities are the custodians of the interests of local people and they behave in a proper way it's beyond contemplation that people in Campbell town are likely to find themselves subject to this while people in Cornwall in England where their local authority has come to a conclusion they will not make such levies incidentally there are no air traffic controllers at Campbellton or Barra there are air flight information service officers but that's perhaps but it's a very substantial air for all sorts of interesting reasons but bottom line is that I think we should conduct this debate with proper respect for us as individuals and that was the main point I will wish to make in coming to my views nobody dictates to me my views I come to them honestly I may be wrong at the end of the day as all of us can be but I come to my views honestly and independently I would ask members to respect that as I respect the views above everyone else around this thank you very much I'm now going to call Pauline and then I'm going to call Richard Lyle thank you very much I just wanted to briefly address some points in relation to the exchange between Jamie Greene and Richard Lyle because the people of Glasgow if this is passed into law are likely to face a levy in their workplace because that has already been declared by the authorities like Mike Rumbles and Stuart Stevenson in favour of localism too but I do believe that it's the job of this Parliament to set the national policy and we are responsible for the national policy on anti-poverty measures and therefore in doing our jobs therefore I would have thought that there should be some serious consideration given to exemptions I've done some consultation so tenants for example Duke Street which is probably regarded as being pretty close to the city centre the workers there are concerned there are shift workers, part-time workers and actually there are people who use the bus to go on the back shift because they can but in other shifts they can't because it's just not possible to get public transport at certain times at night McVitties in Glasgow is a same company which has part-time workers, shift workers and these are companies which are already concerned about the implications of Brexit so even if the levy is charged on them I think we would be asking committee members to consider the implications all round not just on the workforce but on what is already a very concerned industry sector on the implications of Brexit Edrington which is a well-known company Whiskie company Fabulous company in Drumchappel all over Glasgow and beyond again they are concerned for their part-time workers and this lastly convener has been expressed to me by shop students in those places that they are very concerned about the impact on women workers because in some cases there is a predominantly female workforce many who are single parents and many who have got child care responsibilities who need their cars and they are concerned in most of these cases and I think the shop students are concerned that even if the workplace levy is not passed on to them they do fear that in the subsequent pay-arounds they will effectively pay the price for that to a company has to fork out £400 or whatever the detail is of the charge Thank you very much Pauline I have to agree with the appointment of Stuart Stevenson as I said earlier I made comments on the car park in Levy well before it came in front of this committee well before months before but I am struck by the fact that just because I have listened to the arguments listened to the evidence and changed my view that I am now being attacked but the situation is if I had not and I had been voting with the other members who, the other five who feel that they are not going to listen to I may have been also then attacked by the other five members so sorry sometimes the politician you have to come off the fence I have come off the fence in regards to this and you know I have to say some of these amendments are pure scaremongering scaremongering comments made by Mr Stevenson are correct I worked in Glasgow I paid to park in Glasgow for a number of years when I worked for the Royal Bank I paid on the street or alternatively in a car park I didn't have an individual car park in space and many companies won't have individual car park in spaces for their workers their workers will be paying on street parking or in car parks care workers care workers are out and about visiting the people they look after I don't see where they park when I was a councillor they didn't park in the council car park so they wouldn't get charged for panthymia pure scaremongering so with the greatest respect to Mr Rumbles and others just because I've changed my mind you should also change your mind can I just make an observation and I think it's interesting is that we have two suggestions that people are making out their mind because they're being told what to do and being criticised for making that comment it's then wrong in my opinion for committee members then to criticise other people for the position they're taking we all are entitled to have our opinion and therefore I think we should respect it before I come to the cabinet secretary I again would like to take off my convener's hat and just make an observation is that I think that councils are under increased financial pressure one of the things that happens when councils are under financial pressure is to look at all ways of raising revenue across their portfolios certainly saw it in Highland when looking at car parking fees were being raised on car parks in Highland areas so they do look at opportunities and I think my fear is that when it comes to people who could be swept up in this although councils may say at the moment they don't want to raise working place parking levy they may be forced into doing it as the financial position comes tougher one other comment that I would make is there has been no investigation on the financial case for this because there are some firms that I know of who contact me who pay for their employees to park in public car parking spaces and they don't have the ability to provide them parking spaces and it may be that should this levy come in that those employees will then fall into paying for their parking charges because the companies believe that everyone else pays for it so it's an issue that's been raised Cabinet Secretary can I just call you in now and can I just say to you that as soon as you finish speaking we are going to pause so Cabinet Secretary till the pause is yours as it were okay the amendments in Mr Finnie's name strike a balance between the national and local dimension we have a national framework that allows national exemptions to be applied but as John Finnie said in moving his amendments national exemptions it should be the exception and I agree I believe our role is to set the framework and to then let those who take forward a scheme to 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 15 or fewer or fewer than 20 workplace parking spaces those numbers are arbitrary with no reference to the circumstances that a local authority will be trying to address I think amendment 15 has the balance right and would allow local authority schemes to exempt premises and would allow a maximum number of parking spaces as the scheme in Nottingham does and so I'm happy to support the amendment if the amendment is pressed to revote I would encourage the committee to do to support it I would invite Colin Smyth and Jamie Greene not to move amendments 15A and 15B but if they are moved I would ask the committee to reject them amendment 16 has attracted a lot of attention at least when measured against a number of amendments to it I will return to those in considering the amendments and the range that they intend to address on the exceptions set out in amendment 16 I fully support these yes, the exception to hospitals and NHS premises was a condition of our support of supporting the workplace parking licensing scheme and amendments John Finnie made the case for the NHS very clearly in his own contribution and I'm happy to support this approach I also see the merit in including hospices and blue badges in a limited range of national exemptions on similar grounds I agree with John Finnie that national exemptions should be the exception I agree with the principles of localism and believe that significant local decisions are best made locally that will mean that we are informed about those circumstances, needs and opinions amendment 16 has and I believe the commitment to finish this point amendment 16 has and I believe I've got the balance right and I'm happy to support the amendment if pressed to the vote I would invite the committee to support it too I'm not too sure what it was trying to make an intervention two questions one, why did the Government come to a view that it's only the NHS and not other forms of public service workers in similar circumstances and two, does it not agree or why does it not think that if you give the power only to local authorities to create local exemptions then it will create a disparity between local authorities in that some workers will have to pay it in one ear but others not in others how is that a fair policy when as I said a teaching assistant in Dundee in Glasgow does where is the fairness in that the purpose was to give local authorities the discretion to be able to tailor schemes that reflect their local circumstances and that's why the amendments which we support provide that type of flexibility for them to determine what the ACA has been local need keep in mind that there is a significant level of engagement that has to be undertaken by local authorities prior to establishing such a scheme to make sure that they consult with a range of different stakeholders which allows them to consider issues that are raised during that process so there is a very robust duty placed upon local authorities to consider those issues and then ultimately it is for local elected members to come to that decision and our decision to support the issues around NHS is driven by the fact that it is a national service alongside the very specific issues in terms of the number of parking spaces that are very often required at hospitals not only for those but also those who are accessing the hospital itself and on that basis we agreed that there should be a principle of NHS facilities at a national level being a national exemption. The remaining amendments in this group of which there are 37 in total all seek to exempt a sectorial group, specified premises or a company. I was struck when reading these amendments how little they reflect the evidence that this committee provided in advance of stage 2. Not unreasonably we look to Nautim's experience of actually running a scheme. Chris Carter from Nautim told the committee that and I quote 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. However, we have 37 amendments each seeking to add further nationally mandated exemptions. It's almost, if you don't mind me saying convener, you could be left by thinking that some members don't actually want the scheme to work by the range of exemptions they're seeking to put in place. I understand that these are concerns about how a workplace parking licence scheme will be applied. Mr Greene, if you want to take a look at the issue, I don't think it's fair that we talk over each other when people are talking Cabinet Secretary. For me, the place to address these is at a local level except in very specific cases. I am concerned that the amendment seeking to bring in additional national exemptions will have the effect of undermining local decision making and make schemes unworkable and ineffective. As a result, I cannot support these amendments and I would invite members not to move them. However, if they are moved, I would invite the committee to reject them. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We are about to go on as Cabinet Secretary has alluded to a series of votes but before we do that the amendments will need to be pressed but I am going to suspend the meeting now for 10 minutes and then I'm going to come back and ask Mr Finlay and Colin Smyth to move on to the amendment. The meeting is suspended till 11 o'clock. I would like to reconvene this meeting of the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee. Cabinet Secretary had just summed up and I'm now going to move to John Finlay to wind up on amendment 15. Mr Finlay. There's been a lot of discussion on it. I'll just leave it at that. Colin Smyth, can I ask you to wind up on amendment 15a and press or withdraw it? I'll press my amendment, convener. Thank you. Before we go into the votes I'd have to remind members that if amendment 15a is agreed to I cannot call amendment 15b due to a preemption. The question is that amendment 15a be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. There are five votes four. There are six votes against therefore 15a is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 15b in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 15. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Moved. The question therefore is amendment 15b are agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. Those who abstain please raise their hands. Therefore, there are four votes four. There are six votes against. There's one abstention therefore amendment 15b is not agreed. Therefore, Mr Finlay, can I ask you to press or withdraw amendment 15? Press, convener. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I prefer amendment 15 because the area of addresses on those Rhaol, daeth eno ein schurnau hwnnaeth, gydych yn ddech 완성. D dancing. Rweddai 4 honi a gweithio arulled gyda diolch.  Oeddi'r dweud o'r llwylau? Rwy'n annes. Rwy'n annes, therefore, o'r amweinfaith reiwn i'r gwasanaeth mwy yn cysylltu. Rwy'n annes, ac rwy'n annes. Rwy'n annes. Rwy'n annes, therefore, cyfraithio'r ddraefincio'r ddodigol i'n dda? Ac e'ch gweld i'r ddodigol i'r ddodigol? There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16C is not agreed. I call amendments 16E, in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debate with amendment 15. Might rumbles to move or not move? Well, I want to bring it back to stage 3 where we might get a fairer hearing, so I will not move. Thank you. Therefore, I call amendments 16X, in the name of Liam Kerr, already debate with amendment 15. Liam Kerr to move or not move? nhw'n llwyddem. Diolch yn fwy o'r ysgoledig? Rwy'n wych. Felly, yn ym allan y fwy o'r ysgoledig, y rhan gael chi'n ddaeth nhw, gallai'n ddifdesion! Rwy'n fwy o'r ysgoledig, byddai'n fwy o'r ysgoledig. Felly, mae'r ddawf yn llwyddem. Rw'n fwy o'r ddawf yn llwyddem. Fynd ym llwyddem, mae'r eysig isa'r ysgoledig. Rwy'n ddysgu'r ysgoledig, i'n dd 등fynu Llyrdi Aelodau, Gwladwn i'n debygio gyda Menwany 15 Llywodraeth Le-Ym Cerdarnor, mae gyda'r Cresnidol y Llywodraeth 16 Y yn ym 17, rydyn ni'n debygio? Rydyn ni'n debygio. A neu'r Cresnidol yn ym 15, elfa ffordd rydyn ni'n debygio, rydyn ni'n debygio. Rydyn ni'n debygio eich rydyn ni'n debygio. Rydyn ni'n debygio, roedd ym 5, rydyn ni'n debygio, mae rydyn ni'n debygio. Le'w rollen ei wneudaduraeth 16 A B yn y name of Morris Corry. We're already debated with amendment 15, Morris Corry, to move or not move, moved. The question therefore is that amendment 16abb agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16abb is not agreed. I call amendment 16ac in the name of Morris Corry, already debated with amendment 15, Morris Corry, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 16ac be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. Therefore there are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16ac is not agreed. I call amendment 16d in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 15, Colin Smith to move or not move. Therefore the question is, is amendment 16d be agreed, are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16d is not agreed. I'd like now to call amendment 16l in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 15, Mike Rumbles to move or not move. I'm always an optimist and I'd like to fare a hearing at stage three, so I'm not going to move it now. Okay, can I just say it would help me members if you could just move or not move the amendment, because I then, I'm just saying I've got another 14 so pages before we get to the next bit, so just keep the votes flowing it makes it easier so that it's not moved. Therefore I call amendment 16f in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 15, Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 16g in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 15, Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 16v in the name of Alexander Stewart, already debated with amendment 15. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to move or not move please? Moved. The question is that amendment 16v be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there is division, those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16v is not agreed. I call amendment 16h in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 15, Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. The question therefore is not a question, it's to call amendment 16l in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 15, Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. Therefore I call amendment 16j in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 15, Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 16k in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 15, Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 16o in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 15 miles break to move or not move. The question is, is amendment 16 O be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 O is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 16 P in the name of miles breaks to move or not move. The question is, is amendment 16 P be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 B is not agreed. I call amendment 16 Q in the name of miles breaks already debated with amendment 15 miles breaks to move or not move. The question is, is amendment 16 Q be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 Q is not agreed. I now call amendment 16 R in the name of miles breaks already debated with amendment 15 miles breaks to move or not move. Thank you. The question, therefore, is amendment 16 R agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 R is not agreed. I call amendment 16 S in the name of miles breaks already debated with amendment 15 miles breaks to move or not move. The question, therefore, is that amendment 16 S be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 S is not agreed. I call amendment T in the name of miles breaks already debated with amendment 15 miles breaks to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 16 T be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 T is not agreed. I call amendment 16 U in the name of miles breaks already debated with amendment 15 miles breaks to move or not move. Thank you. The question, therefore, is amendment 16 U be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 U is not agreed. I call amendment 16 W in the name of Alexander Stewart already debated with amendment 15. Jeremy Greene, are you going to move it or not move it on his behalf? Pardon me. Can you just repeat the amendment number? 16 W. Thank you. I moved. The question is that amendment 16 W be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 W is not agreed. I call amendment 16 Z in the name of Liam Kerr already debated with amendment 15. Liam Kerr to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question, therefore, is amendment 16 Z be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 Z is not agreed. I call amendment 16 AA in the name of Liam Kerr already debated with amendment 15. Liam Kerr to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question, therefore, is amendment 16 AA be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 16 AA is not agreed. I call amendment 16 AD in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 15. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 16 AE in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 15. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Apologies, I had some technical errors in my notes. Moved. The question is that amendment 16 AE be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are four votes for, there are seven votes against, therefore, amendment 16 AE is not agreed. I call amendment 16 AF in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 15. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 16 AF be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore, amendment 16 AF is not agreed. I call amendment 16 AG in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 15. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Not move. I call amendment 16 AE in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 15. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 16 AE be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore, amendment 16 AE is not agreed. I call amendment 16 AJ in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 15. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 16 AJ be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore, amendment 16 AJ is not agreed. I call amendment 16 AK in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 15. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Not move. I therefore call amendment 16 AM in the name of Mike Rumbles already debated with amendment 15. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. I then call amendment 16 AH in the name of Miles Briggs already debated with amendment 15. Miles Briggs to move or not move. I intend to bring this back at stage 3 as it would exempt the lowest paid working in our NHS, but I'd like to move this today as well. Thanks. You're going to move it today. Okay, so the question is that amendment 16 AH be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. I therefore call a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore, amendment 16 AH is not agreed. The question now is to ask Mr Finney whether you want to press or withdraw your amendment 16. The question therefore is amendment 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Okay, the next section is working place parking and its financial provisions. I'm going to call amendment 17 in the name of John Finney, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. John Finney, can I ask you to move amendment 17 and speak to all amendments in the group? Thank you. Thank you, convener. Amendment 17 outlines how charges arising from the workplace parking licence will operate. The first and key point is that there is a charge on the occupier of the premises, not on individuals who are parking at their workplace. How and indeed if the levy is recovered from those parking at their workplace is a matter between the employer and employee. I'd like to specifically address the power in subsection 1, subsection B, of my amendment, because I think it's key to the other amendments in the group. It's important to be clear that the power for Scottish ministers to specify other persons who may be liable is to allow for circumstances where someone other than the occupier of premises should be liable to pay charges for the provision of workplace parking. This would for example allow for circumstances where parking spaces at an occupier's premises are leased to another organisation for use by that organisation's employees. The person providing those places to their employees would not be the occupier of the premises at which the spaces are allocated, but would have to hold a licence in respect of those parking spaces. Regulations under subsection 1B of the amendment 17 could ensure that that person must also pay charges. The amendment absolutely does not mean that it could be levied on individual employees, since it is restricted to dealing with the recovery of charges imposed under licensing schemes. Under amendment 7, licensing scheme may only impose charges on people providing workplace parking, not on people using it. That is a crucial distinction here. Schemes cannot regulate if or how a provider who is required to hold a licence may choose to recover charges in respect of that licence from anybody else. The majority of amendments in this group therefore appear to be fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of subsection 1B. The practical effect of the amendments will not be to provide exemption to employees or to prevent charges from being recovered in any particular circumstances by employers or anybody else liable to pay them. However, they could prevent charges imposed by schemes from being recovered from people who provide workplace parking, which is surely not the intention. It 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. The amendment allows for local authorities setting up a scheme to have some flexibility in how it is applied, permitting different charges or indeed no charge to be applied in respect of different days, times, persons, premises and vehicles. That will be a very useful tool for local authorities, as they can tailor the 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 would already address the issue that was covered by amendment 17r, allowing again for the local authority to take the lead on what is best for the local area. It is not clear to me whether amendment 17t and new are intended to ensure no charges are imposed on respect of weekends or between the hours of midnight 6am, but in any event, this power already permits local authorities to impose lower or no charges on whichever days and whatever times they wish with local discretion again empowered. Amendment 17s seeks to require employers seeking to recover charges from employees to put in place plans to means test those charges. My amendments deliver a scheme that is a charge on people who provide workplace parking, not the people who use it. The reason for that is that the occupiers who are providing the workplace parking and, as a result, it is right that they focus on the impact and result of this parking. My amendments are silent on how, if at all, employers recover the charge from employees, it is a matter for employers whether they recover the charge. Evidence from Nottingham is not that all employers do so. Employers may also decide how to recover charges from employees and how much to recover. Again, the committee has heard evidence from Nottingham City Council that employers subject to their scheme can and do vary the charge recovered depending on factors such as salary of the employee and the location within the scheme area of their place of employment. Is it the case that the member expects that the Government would set a national charge, as was discussed with pavement parking and low-emission zones, via a national regulation, but that companies could, in effect, subsidise the charge that was passed on by making up the difference of what it charges the employee versus what is the company's liable to pay? Is that how the scheme would, in effect, work? I am not sure that I absolutely understand your point, but no, that would not be the intention. Seeking to regulate those nuance matters at a national level would be extremely challenging and may give rise to a greater risk of unfairness than leaving the issue to the discretion and judgment of employers. Amendment 17S requires that employers have a plan for means testing employees, but what should that cover? Income, outgoings, dependence and debts, as well as being extremely bureaucratic, is also extraordinarily intrusive. What if an employee does not want to share details of their private life with an 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 can be used for two purposes—the administration cost of the scheme and for the activities to help to deliver the local transport strategy. That is not a simple revenue-raising power, as some critics suggested. Where a local authority is considering a scheme, it will require a local transport strategy. That 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 to have this than as part of a strategy aiming at addressing local transport needs? This should go some way to providing reassurance on the purpose and outcomes of WPL. This builds on the transparent and locally focused approach adopted in my amendments. The amendment allows for joint working by local authorities where this would benefit the area committing funds. There is a flex that transport issues are often framed by travel to work areas rather than local authority boundaries. Amendment 18A would require a financial transfer from a local authority operating scheme to another local authority where a workplace parking licence charge is levied and that charge is passed on to an employee and that employee lives in another local authority. The principle underpinning the amendment appears to be that it is unfair that people who live out with a local authority area should pay towards transport improvements in that area, but that is really unfair. You could equally argue that it is unfair that people from out with an area who use transport, including local roads in an area, do not contribute. There are issues with the amendment as well as the bureaucracy required. Funds raised through charges will be hypothesised into activities set out in the local transport strategy. The receiving local authority may not have a local transport strategy and in any way would not be required to utilise the funds that it receives to improve transport services. It could apply those funds in any way that is of it. Fundamentally—this is all about the climate emergency that we are facing—we need as many tools available as possible to address this. It is disingenuous to claim that people who commute into a neighbouring local authority do not contribute to problems for that authority and do not benefit from transport expenditure by that authority. Amendment 19 gives Scottish ministers largely technical powers in relation to accounts for workplace licensing schemes. That is similar to provisions already in part 1 of the bill on LEZs and part 4 on parking prohibitions. The amendment allows for transparency in the keeping of accounts by local authorities and I would expect that to be uncontroversial. I am move amendment 17. Amendment 17C is drafted to stop companies passing the charge on to workers, some of which I have already spoken to. If one of the issues is about the funds raised by the workplace levy, I would like to draw the committee's attention that, based on noting on which is not a dissimilar size to Glasgow, in the case of Glasgow, £9 million a year is going to take a decade before that fund really builds up to anything that can be spent, and you will note on the connectivity report as a result of that that they have asked for over £1 billion. You can see that it is not going to raise the kind of funds that is going to change the face of public transport, but it is going to cause a great deal of misery for workers. That deals with amendment 17C. I am not clear perhaps if John Finnie apologies to John if I have been confused about this, but my understanding is that money is not ring-fenced. Local authorities, Glasgow in particular, is under a great deal of financial pressure. You could understand why they would use the money to spend on other things that are not public transport, but I would have more respect for the policy if there was a clear attempt to ring-fence the money for public transport, and it does not actually make a great deal of sense to me in terms of the arguments. If it is not ring-fenced for that purpose, it was us trans and their very helpful evidence to the committee. They did agree that there should be discounts for low-paid workers, and they did seem to acknowledge that there should be poverty-proofing in such a policy. To deal with the other amendments, amendment 17A and 17B provide an exemption for people earning less than their living wage, again to protect low-paid workers. The living wage is currently £9 an hour, and nearly half a million people, £470,000 to be exact in Scotland, do not end their real living wage. Low-paid employees may be forced to look elsewhere for work in the worst-case scenario. That is a legitimate argument, Mr Lyle. Amendment 17D provides an exemption for single-parent families. Here, I want to draw the committee's attention to the Child Poverty Act. At stage 3 of that passage of that bill, we agreed as a Parliament to put a measure in to specifically ask the Government to address measures in relation to child poverty and single-parent in particular, and to specify a group within the Child Poverty Act. According to the 2001 Scottish census, there are 170,000 single-parents in Scotland with more than 100 and 281,000 dependent children. Glasgow has the highest rate of lone-parent families. It faces many barriers to finding and sustaining employment. Amendment 17E provides an exemption for—yes, I will take an intervention, Mr Lyle. I am interested in where you get your information from and how you can back up how many people this would affect. How many people would this affect? Any charge. How many people would it affect? How many people in Glasgow who take the bus and go into Glasgow? How many people would this affect? How many people would take the bus? No. How many people would this be your point? How many people would end up paying a parking levy? I am not paying parking charges. Mr Lyle, just hold on. Thousands of people could be. Can I just remind just the etiquette of doing this? 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 will then answer it. Convener, in answer to Mr Lyle, there are tens of thousands of workers who could be potentially affected dependent as you know it would then be a matter for the local authority. The local authority in Glasgow has already decided that it is going to use it and there are thousands of workers who could be affected by it. Transport Scotland's own figures show that car usage among the low-income households is relatively high. The suggestion that all low-paid workers get the bus is a misunderstanding of the profile of the city. In relation to amendment 7e, there is already an employment gap between disabled people and the rest of the working-age population. Disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed. I know that there has been discussion about the blue badge scheme, possibly being exempt, but I think that we need to discuss who, if anyone, would be exempt. There is certainly an issue about disabled workers who are able to use their cars and we need to make sure that they do not have further burdens on their daily lives. Amendment 17e provides an exemption for parents with children under 12 or under primary school age. Many parents need to use their cars to do their own before work. Many women in particular—I do not believe that this has been equality-proofed before stage 2—many children in primary school are taken to school by car or van more than in secondary. 29 per cent of primary pupils went to school in Scotland by car or van compared with only 18 per cent of secondary pupils. When many parents are saved as a form of transport, often in primary school, pupils do not use public transport because they are too young. It is a significant issue for parents. I quote that. I would normally ask Miles Briggs to move amendment 17g in his name, but I think that Jamie Greene will be moving it on his behalf. According to protocol, I will only speak to Miles as amendments and keep my other comments to the laughter that other members have had their drewplies to speak to their amendments. I will, hopefully, come back later. On Miles's Briggs amendment 17g, I think that the premise of this is to specify that if someone is providing voluntary services at premise, following three premises—an adult health care premise, an adult social care premise or indeed a hospice—that is to find the summer in which its purpose is caring for the dying or incurably ill, that anyone who volunteers at such a premise would be exempt from being liable for any charges. Again, 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 work in these sorts of places—I can declare an interest in that members of my family provide voluntary services at some of these places and do great work, as I am sure all volunteers do—at the very least, those people are not paid for goodness sake. At least, give them some exemption from those charges. Please, can we find at least some moral duty to give volunteers exemption, and I think that that is the premise of Miles Briggs. In that point? Yes, I will, but can I just ask for other members just to let me finish? That would be great. In amendment 16, we have already voted for hospices for them to be exempt. Okay, that is very helpful. I support that. However, Miles Briggs also wishes to add people who volunteer in the other healthcare environments. Can I give an example? Has anyone ever been to hospital and used— To discreet your chances to intervene, rather than making those comments over there, say, by all means intervene and see if the member will take it. Thank you, if I could continue. I just addressed the intervention from Ms Ross. Yes, it is very welcome that the Government agrees that people who work at hospices are exempt. I presume that that will also include those who volunteer, but the addition of these other healthcare premises could include the example of people who provide services at the shops and cafes that many hospitals in Scotland provide. Those people are volunteers. I will just check the name of some of their organisations, but we are all aware of them. We all come across them when we visit hospitals. If I could just finish the point. Those people who perhaps even work full-time hours are unpaid. It may be required to drive to those locations, especially if they are in hard-to-reach areas. I think that that is the premise of Mr Miles Briggs' amendments. I am happy to give way to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport. I ask for all the comments. I do not know if the member is unclear about how the level will apply, because it is applied on the basis of premises. If you are a volunteer at a hospice, if it is being exempt, it is exempt from it because the premises are exempt. If the local authority decides that a particular facility is to be exempt from it, it is exempt. It is a premises levy. It is not an individual levy. Indeed, but these places are not exempt because you voted not to exempt them.  You and your members had the opportunity to exempt those types of places. If you want to intervene, do not shout at me from across the room. Hold on. I have said this and I am not going to keep repeating myself. The committee is not conversation. We are trying to get through the legislation. If you want to have conversations across the room, could you do it through the chair to ask me or a member to take an intervention? Shouting at each other across the room, I do not think that it is very helpful. It could lead to anarchy if that was allowed to continue, which I am sure that you will not want to achieve. Mr Greene, if I could continue on what I think is quite a serious matter. The cabinet secretary is right that if a place is exempt, then by default, whether you are paid or otherwise, you will be exempt. However, because the committee has chosen not to exempt those premises, the amendment at least seeks to exempt those who volunteer at those premises as a backup. I implore members to think carefully about the people, the sort of people that we meet in our interactions as MSPs in those establishments, that if they were not exempt because a local authority had chosen not to exempt them, at the very least, it would give those volunteers the opportunity to be exempt. We can at least exempt those types of people who volunteer at those organisations, at the very least, and that can be set as a national standard. It is the right thing to do, and I implore members to support that amendment. Thank you, Jamie. I call Michelle Ballantine to speak to amendments 17H and any other amendments in the group. Michelle. Okay, thank you. I'll try and keep this relatively brief, and I thank the committee for allowing me to speak this morning, and I'll just refer you to my register of interests before I do so. The amendments that I've lodged in this bill seek to secure exemptions from the scheme for individuals receiving benefit payments. 17H secures exemptions for individuals in receipt of short-term assistance, while IJNK, 17IJNK, provide exemptions for individuals in receipt of universal credit job seekers allowance, employment support respectively. Furthermore, amendments 17L, M and N would secure exemptions for individuals in receipt of disability living allowance, personal independence payment and carers allowance. The reason for lodging these exemptions is because I believe people that are in receipt of benefits are already at the lower end of our earning scale and are actively trying to get back into the workplace to increase gradually their work hours, and I think that this does two things. If you provide national exemption, it ensures consistency in terms of those people who are in receipt of benefits to be confident that if they go into the workplace they may not end up having to pay if they part there. Secondly, and I've listened to the arguments very carefully this morning, if you are suggesting that businesses are picking up the tab for that parking, it may contribute to actively encouraging businesses to employ people who might otherwise have difficulty getting into the employment market. Particularly for people who have disabilities who currently do struggle to get employment, it may provide an extra incentive for businesses to employ. I would also add to this, because I do believe that there is a risk, particularly where we are talking about cross-boundary risk. For most of the people who sit within this category, they cannot afford to live in the cities. They are often pushed to the edges or outside of the cities, but they seek employment within the city boundary, and therefore will be potentially caught by this. Secondly, businesses already pay rates on their parking spaces, because that is part of the rateable value of an organisation's premises. What we will be doing is double charging businesses for this. That may be fine if you are a highly profitable service-led industry, but for example, for manufacturing, where margins are much tighter, that will pose considerable problems. It is important that you consider national exemptions on some areas, being one of them. I am pleased that you have welcomed exemptions for the NHS, but many people on benefits, for example, will be questioning why highly paid NHS staff are entitled to a national exemption, where they, on the minimum wages and struggling to get back into the workplace and provide for their families, do not receive that kind of same exemption. Can I just clarify that the member understands that we are talking about the places being taxed here, not the person. As far as the legislation is concerned, it does not differentiate between higher or lower paid employees. It would only be if the employer wanted to pass on or cut the pay or something of the person that would come into effect. I made reference to that in my comments. What I said to you was that a business is not prohibited from passing it on, and my understanding from the legislation that you are putting together here is that it does not prohibit an employer from passing on that cost. Hang on, let me finish. That may well happen. Secondly, if they do not pass it on as a direct charge to the employee, it will inevitably, in businesses with low margins, affect the rates that they can pay. By default, as an unintended consequence of your actions, it will affect the earnings of the lowest paid. Yes, I understand exactly what you are trying to do here. I understand that you are imposing it as a place charge, not as an individual charge, but I say to all of you that, when you make law, it always has unintended consequences. I do not believe that, in some of your debate here, you have considered some of those unintended consequences in entirety, and I do not believe that you have shown adequate understanding of how business operates and the impact that you will have on business, who are already paying for that parking. If it was, say, theoretically reflected in a lower pay increase next year, there is no way that this Parliament can intervene or be involved in that. Effectively, if an employer was to give a lower pay increase other than going below the minimum wage, we cannot possibly enforce that. That is the whole point, is not it? Government's actions have effect in the real world. The consequences of your decision making in this committee and within this bill will have effect in the real world. You are incumbent on all of us when we come to vote on this bill, and it is incumbent on all of us when considering the amendments coming before this bill to consider the potential consequences of the decisions that you make. I have listened carefully this morning to a lot of this debate. Some of it makes good sense, some of it shows a huge degree of naivety around the real world, but I am saying to you that the people who always suffer the most when we make these kinds of laws are the people on the lowest incomes. I am saying to you that if you are seriously sitting here and telling me that you think that it is imperative that there is a national exemption for NHS employees based on their contribution to society, the need for what they do, how can you possibly say that there is no need to actually protect those who are on the lowest, and there is no need within it to try and ensure opportunity and encouragement for businesses as well, because I think that you are really missing the point. I really get your concern, but we are so concerned when your party brought in the bedroom tax, and people had to pay that. Mr Lyle, Mr Lyle, Mr Green, hold on everyone. In fairness, we are looking at the car parking and working place parking levy. To throw comments like that, I do not think that it is helpful. I think that you have come to the end. Sorry, Mr Lyle. Mr Lyle, with the greatest respect to you, as convener of this group, I think that I believe that I show a remarkable amount of impartiality when it comes to things. I do not pass comment, and I would ask if you would respect and treat me the same way that you would with the Presiding Officer, which means that you do not answer back when I am speaking, because I think that that is rude and shows disrespect to the parliamentary system. Now, Michelle has finished her speaking. I am going to call Maurice Corry to speak to amendment 17.0. Thank you, convener. I speak to 17.0, and I also declare that I am an armed forces veteran. This amendment covers both uniformed and serving personnel, regular reservists and cadets, and civilian instructors serving within all our military units and in all military bases and training areas in Scotland, which are Crown property. Operationally, they are there, and many of our personnel have to be available 24 hours per day. At some cases, they are noticed to move at short notice. Therefore, they require their vehicles to attend for duty at all hours and where the public transport is not available or is limited, particularly in rural and out-of-town areas. Therefore, I move amendment 17.0 accordingly. Thank you, Maurice. Can I ask Colin Smyth, please, to move amendment 17.0 and talk to the other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I am happy to move amendment 17.0 in my name, which would exempt low earners as defined by ministers and regulations. As it stands, this regressive levy will hit the worst off hardest, and this amendment looks to address this should employers pass the levy on to employers. Let's be clear that this can and will be passed on by many employers. Indeed, the SNP spokesperson for transport in Glasgow City Council, in giving evidence to the committee, argued that it will only work if it is passed on to workers. Let me read what Councillor Richardson said to the committee. Passing the levy on is one of the tools to enable behavioural change. What is being passed on in the levy is the disincentive to drive. Let's be clear that the SNP in Glasgow, if they bring in this levy, will pass it on to drivers. Amendment 17.0 looks to exempt those without access to public transport. It is unfair, in my view, to penalise those with no other option, but to use their car to get to work. Amendment 17.0 would exempt those driving ultra-low emission vehicles. If the purpose of this scheme is to reduce emissions, I cannot see why a person driving an ultra-low emission vehicle should have to pay the charge, particularly when they have already paid the additional expense of purchasing such a vehicle to do the right thing and reduce their emissions. Failure to support this amendment would show that the levy has nothing to do with the environment and simply a budget decision designed by the Greens and SNP to provide a fig leaf to cover up for the budget decision to cut funding to local councils. I will give a way to Mr Mason. I thank the member very much for giving way. Would he accept that congestion is also a problem in the city and even if we fill the city centres with electric cars, we still have a problem? The reality is that, if Mr Mason is saying that he is now opposed to electric vehicles being one of the solutions to emissions then, frankly, we have a real challenge on our hands when it comes to the environment. Amendment 17.0 calls for employers to introduce a scheme so that the amount paid by employees varies according to income such as the one described to the committee by Nottingham Council. That will ensure greater fairness should this levy be introduced. In my view, taxes should be progressive. Amendment 18.0 says that, when the cost of the levy is met by an employee, the money raised should go to the local authority in which they are resident. It is unfair that people living outside cities, often with no good public transport links, should have to pay the levy because of a lack of public transport in their area but not have the proceeds of that levy spent on improving the poor public transport that has meant that they have had to use the car in the first place. That is an issue that I have raised in numerous occasions to this committee. I have to say that the cabinet secretary said that this committee is not listening to the evidence. The reality is that the cabinet secretary is failing to listen to the evidence. There needs to be a solution to this particular issue. Cess Trans provided a solution when they gave evidence to this committee and argued strongly that the levy should be done on a strategic basis so that it deals with this anomaly. I will give the example again. Somebody in the Borders would have to pay the levy because they worked in Edinburgh and have no choice but to use their car because there is no public transport and no money raised in Edinburgh will go to improve public transport in the Borders. The way to deal with that issue is to allow the levy to be done on a more strategic basis. I appreciate that this means looking at transport on a strategic basis, which is something that the Government does often enough. I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to the evidence that has been given to this committee and take a far more strategic approach to this proposal. I now call Tom Mason to speak to amendments 17T and other amendments in the group. Tom Mason, can I first of all draw attention to the committee to my register of interests, particularly Emma Abedin, city councillor? Exceptionaly, around this table are we ones that people have to deal with this particular act if it comes into being, and no doubt the local government will be pressured to use it in order to supplement its funds that were not received from the central government being short for change this year by at least £26 million. However, I also associate with the words of Colin Smyrn. It smiles in terms of the lack of strategic thought in this total bill. If there is a problem with congestion and it resolves it by congestion, cars parked do not cause any congestion at all. Why put the levee on parking when it should be on road charging if it is going to solve the congestion problem? Certainly trying to tax electric cars does not strike me as being in any sense whatsoever. However, as the amendments are quite small amendments, the first one, 17T, is simply in order to define what a normal working week is. In other words, it is not 24 hours a day, it is just five days a week and only during the day. The second amendment is simply to exempt those institutions which government-inspired institutions. What is the point of charging levee in any way on those if you are going to collect, if you are robbing Peter to pay Paul? It is not particularly central, so any government thing should be exempt. However, if you do this, of course, you are in problems where you have got pork barrel politics in local government, which determines exactly what is going on. This is an opening situation of disharmony in local government. Thank you, Tom and Jamie Greene. I have two members who wish to speak to amendments 17U and other amendments that are not already covered. Thank you, convener. Does that mean that I also can speak to other amendments? There are no other members queuing for moving their own amendments, is that correct? No. If you speak to amendments 17U, I have got you down to speak after Mike Rumble. Mike Rumble will come in first. That is why I want to clarify. I am happy to only speak to 17U in the name of Dean Lockhart, which seeks to amend an exclusion that people who work on sociable hours when public transport is simply not available, not just scarce, between the hours of midnight and 6pm, which should encompass many shift workers who simply have to drive to get to their places of work. I think that this is a sensible amendment. The idea that someone can get a bus 11.30 at night to their place of work in many parts of Scotland is simply not an option. If we are to introduce those amendments, we should acknowledge that there are many people who have to take their cars to work, to work on sociable hours. We should place the importance on shift workers. Those people should be exempt, and this amendment seeks to do so. I hope that it will achieve the support of the committee. Thank you. Mike Rumble is followed by Jamie Greene and any other members, if they would like to indicate that they would like to come in. I have tried in the whole of this bill to put forward amendments that are constructive and helpful to improve the bill. John Finnie's amendments 17, 18 and 19 do improve the bill. I opposed his previous amendments, but if we have to have them in, I will vote for his amendments 17, 18 and 19, because it makes sure that the charges are paid and that the income comes directly to the area that should benefit from it. It makes it clear that it is the occupant of the premises that are charged, so I will support those amendments. I also want to make it clear, because there seem to be some strange comments about this. As I understand it, the whole point of John Finnie's whole series of amendments and the whole point of workplace levy is to make people use their cars less. If you are going to make people use their cars less, that levy will have to be passed on to the drivers, otherwise there is not a point. What is the point if those are not passed on? That is what I accept. If we go down this route, they have to be passed on, and that was the problem. I would be in favour of this approach if we did not put the cart before the horse. If we had areas where we had decent public transport that could encourage people to move from their cars to public transport, if we had that system in place in the first place, then this would be more logical. It is not logical to put in the cart before the horse. I will be voting against all the other amendments in the group from colleagues who have put forward amendments. If they were passed, they would not improve the bill, because the amendments are focused on the occupier of the premises. I know that they are well intentioned, but I will give you an example of Pauline McNeill's amendments. I do not see how we in legislation can prevent a charge of one form or another from being passed on. After all, that is not the purpose of the exercise, so I do not understand that. Another one on Pauline McNeill's 17A regulations into subsection 1B must provide that a person who earns less than the living wages exempt from being specified reliable for the charges. Again, it is the premises that are being charged, not the individual. By the way, you can have very high earners who do not earn. They can take their money in dividends. I certainly will. I lay those amendments because, during the evidence session process, some members were saying that the charges do not need to be passed on. That was said during the passage of the bill. It has been a little bit confusing. I do agree with the member that it seems to me that the policy intention is to pass it on. I laid the amendment to test the argument to see what we are trying to do here, because we need to be clear about the policy intention at least. It seems to me that, if members are saying that it does not need to be passed on, it could be wrong in saying that Mr Mason might have said this. Apologies if he did not. Therefore, if that is the case, what would be the problem in removing the possibilities that companies can pass on to workers? Why do not we just put that in the legislation? I understand where you are coming from in that case. In fact, from what you are saying, it sounds to me that you will not be pressing them. In that case, there will not be a vote on it. To give you an example, your 17D regulations may not apply to a person who is the parent of a child living in a single-parent household. You can have a very wealthy single-person business owner, so why do that? I do not quite understand the point that is being made there. I reiterate the point. I think that the amendments are well intentioned. They miss the point of the bill. As I say it, the whole point of John Finnie's amendment is to change behaviour. It is to move people from driving their cars on to public transport. My problem with John's approach has always been that if we do not have public transport in place, how can you be effective in changing behaviour? He raises a number of points. One is that we at least accept that in the city centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh we do have pretty good public transport and people generally can get there without using their car. Secondly, would he accept that an employer has various options? One is to pass them on, the charge, but one is to reduce the number of parking spaces so that there are fewer cars and there is less congestion. The third one is obviously to absorb if it is a profitable company, to absorb the cost themselves. I thank the member for that intervention. My whole point earlier on, and the amendments that I thought were constructive ones that I put in, was just that very point that John Mason makes. If Edinburgh City Council were convinced that they had a decent public transport service, then they could put that in. My amendment was designed to ensure that it did not go in somewhere that did not have a decent public service because the whole point is to change behaviour. The whole point is to move people out from cars onto trains or buses or whatever it is, public transport. That is why I think 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 just wanted to say that I will be supporting John Finnie's amendments there because they do improve what the committee has voted for, even though I did not vote for it. That is the whole focus of my attention and the whole process, and the job of the committee is to improve the legislation. I just wish that that member… I said that he is opposed to the other amendments in this area, but he has not addressed the issue. I mean, he mentioned that the cart before the horse rally is, in part of my region, more likely to get a horse on yard and getting a bus through perfectly on it. Those constituents are the ones that will be penalised because they will be paying the levy by travelling into the city to work, but they do not have the public transport. As the bill is currently written, none of the money will be spent on improving public transport in the area. My amendment seeks to improve that by sharing it more widely, and surely that is something that we should be looking to do. I do not see how you can focus on the person paying these rather than the employer. I just do not see how you can get around it because it is too easily to get around it. It misses the whole point of the purpose of John Finnie's amendment to the bill, so I will not be supporting that. I am trying, as I say, to do what I think is the right thing, which is to improve the bill with John Finnie 17, 18 and 19. That does that, even though I do not like what John Finnie has done in the first place, but at least we can mitigate what he has done. I think that he would come to the end of his thing. I have to leave because I have to attend another meeting. I have instructed Jamie Greene on my amendments. Jamie Greene, you want to speak next, so I have no other members to speak. After our short break, there has been an interesting debate about some of the mechanics of how the schemes might work. Mr Rumbles, I appreciate his seeking to improve what has already passed in a sense, and I totally respect his modus operandus. To improve the bill, we would delete 17, 18 and 19, so I will not be supporting any of them. Given the conversation that we are having, let us look at some of the amendments, because we have to vote on some of those amendments if they are moved. Let us look at what we are voting on. It is important that we do that. I will take a step back from this. Some of those amendments are quite interesting and quite helpful. For example, if you take the amendments regarding exemption for people driving electric vehicles, I thought that we were trying to encourage people into electric cars. Why would we then charge them for moving from carbon-based vehicles to electric cars and then charging them for driving those electric cars to work? People will be making those shifts because of other pieces of legislation in the bill in terms of setting up a low-emission zones. Why on earth would we then give them the benefit of not charging them for entering cities through the zones and then hitting them with a charge as they park their electric car at their place of work? How is that going to get us from 0.7 per cent ownership of electric cars in Scotland to anywhere near the levels that Government and probably other members have desires to reach? That, in itself, is something that we definitely should support. We are looking at some of the other sensible amendments. The points that Michelle Ballantyne was trying to make around this argument, around whether this is a levy on places or people, I think that is a key point. I know that Mr Mason spoke about this a few times. There is a point that this is a levy on places, but that is only because that is how it is being constructed. We are creating the law through those processes. This was never in the bill in the first place. Those are amendments to a transport bill that the Government brought forward, so we can amend those amendments. That is what we are trying to do. If we want to make it about people, we can make it about people. It does not have to be about places. The point of many of the amendments that those are discussing, from Miles Briggs, from Pauline McNeill, from Colin Smith and Michelle Ballantyne, is shifting the focus from the place to the person. Ultimately, that is who will be paying the levies. It is people at the end of the day. Whether those people are the employers of small businesses or the workers in those businesses, it is still the people. There are certain groups of people that should be exempt. That is the whole point of those groupings. People who are in receipt of benefits and who also 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 and do choose to work. Why should they have to pay it? For goodness sake, what about people who are driving adapted cars because of disabilities? Are we really suggesting that we are going to charge them as well? What on earth is this committee doing? Let us have a real long hard look at ourselves. If we are not going to exempt places, then let us think about exempting people and let us think about those people who we want to get into the workplace, not put off. Charging them to park at work is not the way to get them back into the workplace. I will stop my comments there. Amendment 17, in many ways, is a 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 17.1b to specify other persons who can have charges imposed on them is absolutely not about requiring employees or anybody else using workplace parking to pay the charges. It cannot do that. I therefore agree that the amendments in 17.1b, in many ways, are not the way to get them back into the workplace. I agree entirely with what you have said, but surely the intention is to change behaviour, to move people out of their cars and to public transport. Therefore, the intention of this amendment is to make sure that that charge is passed on to the employee, surely? There are a variety of options that are available to premise owners. For example, in Nottingham, the university repurposed a large part of its car park for other use. Employers could do that. They could decide to reduce the amount of parking spaces that they make available, not to encourage people to make use of public transport as well. They could turn it into a green space if they wanted to. There are other options available to employers if they choose to do so. Therefore, I agree that the amendments in this group, which seek to amend or make provision about the exercise of the pills in subsection 1b of amendment 17 in order to prevent or restrict imposition of charges on people who use workplace parking, are misconceived and I therefore cannot support them. Subsection 2 of 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, would be imposed on local authorities by some of the amendments proposed today. The 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 by varying charges for different days, different times, different premises or different classes of vehicle. It also allows local authorities to act in a proactive way, for example, to promote low-carbon vehicles. Amendment 17 also requires local authorities to consider how they will direct the funds raised by the scheme's when-setting charges. That is also addressed further in amendment 18. That makes crystal clear that a workplace licensing scheme is not simply a revenue-raising exercise. I am very clear that it is our responsibility to set the framework for workplace parking levies and then allow local authorities flexibility to apply those in ways that are sensitive to local circumstances. The provisions in amendment 17 do that. Amendment 18 provides clear direction on how funds raised should be used. It does not say what funds should be used on but requires the local authority proposing a scheme as a local transport strategy and funds raised should go to the facilitation of that strategy. A workplace parking licensing licensing scheme should only be proposed where it is going to help meet wider objectives. As those objectives need to be clearly set out, which is the role of the local transport strategy in making sure that there is a clear strategic objective being set, the objectives and the local transport strategy will be identified and they will be agreed locally. This will in turn inform the scheme, which will, with the exception of the national exemptions, be agreed locally. I am comfortable that amendment 18 sits well with the localism approach. The amendment also facilitates joint working, which I know was a concern for some stakeholders and in allowing for the administration costs of the scheme to be met from the funds raised by the scheme so that 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 a local authority operating a scheme to make the necessary improvements to transport infrastructure and services 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 a necessary regulation making power, which is consistent with the rest of the bill. As John Finnie said, allowing for transparency in the keeping of accounts in relation to workplace parking licensing. In summary, I would ask the committee to support John Finnie's amendment in this group should they be pressed to the vote. I would invite other members not to move their amendments in this group, but, if they are moved, I would invite the committee to reject them. John Finnie, can I ask you to wind up on amendment 17A, please? I have nothing further to add, thank you, convener. Thank you very much, Mr Finnie, for being so succinct on that. Thank you. Pauline McNeill, can I ask you to wind up on amendment 17C and press or withdraw it, please? Thank you very much, convener. I intend to press amendment 17C, A and B, and amendment D. I do think that there is no point in this Parliament passing laws on anti-poverty measures and not making sure that they are in the framework. The reason that I include the single parents in it is because the single parents are recorded as being one of the groups that profile as being the lowest paid and lone parents, specifically mentioned in the Child Poverty Act for that reason. I will not be pressing 17E and 17F. Thank you. Having pressed amendment 17C, the question is— Sorry? The question is that amendment 17C be agreed, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, there's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Okay, there's one vote for, 10 votes against, so amendment 17C is not agreed. I call amendment 17A in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 17. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. The question is that amendment 17A be agreed, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, there's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. 17A, okay. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you, there are four votes for, there's seven votes against, therefore amendment 17A is not agreed. Sorry, can I just clarify Pauline, just say I've got it in my brain. Which ones were you not moving? E and F, seven votes E and F. Sorry, the clouds tell me I've got to call them for a valid procedure. So I call amendment 17D in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 17 to move or not move, Pauline. So the question is, is the amendment 17D be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are four votes for, there's seven votes against, therefore amendment 17D is not agreed. I call amendment 17A in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 17. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. E, so what should I say? Sorry, my brain must be completely gone. Let me try that again for the record then. I call amendment 17E in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 17. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. Not moved. Okay, thank you. I therefore call amendment F in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 17. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I therefore call amendment G in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 17. Jamie Greene to move or not move on his behalf. Not moved. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 17H in the name of Michelle Ballantyne, already debated with amendment 17. Jamie Greene to move or not move on her behalf. 17H move. Okay, the question is that's amendment 17H be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are four votes for the seven votes against. Therefore, amendment 17H is not agreed. I call amendment 17I in the name of Michelle Ballantyne, already debated with amendment 17. Jamie Greene to move or not move on her behalf. Thank you. If it's helpful, convener, I won't be moving in the name of Michelle Ballantyne. 17I, J, K, L. I'll call them when I get to them. So I've not moved. I call amendment 17K in the name of Michelle Ballantyne, already debated with amendment 17 move or not move. I call amendment L in the name of Michelle Ballantyne, already debated with amendment 17. To move or not move. Jamie Greene. Roedd almost eisiau wir gofan ar gyfer yr andynt cymaint dynion월.dio wrth gwrs ddifŵr. Ar d Evil Amru motornau Board Ash rzeem Amru motornau Board Morys Corry Psychiatw Forces Morys Corry Morys Corry We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. There are four votes for, there are seven votes against, therefore amendments 17.0 is not agreed. I call amendments 17.P in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendments 17. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendments 17.P agreed, are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Pan ddurdod y Roedd Ddamethon ni'n ddurdod y Roedd Ddamethon ni? Yr hyn o 4 ar draws y mae'r gwylio astudr y ar Dancing Moon wrong ac ddurdod worryant yn 17 toal fadks.焰itation y integr yn bhun o'r maen o ynfath Llywodraeth a Gryffith Gwydig Ch decades yn hynny. Rhyw dweud y oddurdod bheilion inventorol o'r p rewards yn digwyddfa rydym nhw fyŷng b complexion y Cyflogau'r great honna bydd wedi cael bwysig ar�n amser. Ie ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud ar 22.00. 11 ganodwch ar Twy해�dol uchiau i DJI 31 ychydig y Prifysgol Cymru yn ysglystyr yll sev� Jest 13 ym Ysdaw'r Saya yw hwn o Flandon. 12 wrth yr oedd Pw lengtho ar Flandon. There are four votes for, there are seven votes against, therefore, amendment 17S is not agreed. John Finnie can I ask you to press all with you, withdraw amendment 17. The place can be none. Thank you. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Almost caught out. Those against, please raise their hands. There are seven votes for. Mae four votes against, therefore Amendment 17W has agreed. I call Amendment 18 in the name of John Finnie. Already debated with Amendment 17 John Finnie to move or not move. Move, Cymru. I therefore call Amendment 18A in the name of Colin Smyth. Already debated with Amendment 17. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that Amendment 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Aye. Rushing again. There we go. 18A be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Roedd ydy'r deyffordd yn ddeifrif y ddeifrif. those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. There are four votes for, there are seven votes against therefore amendment eighteen a is not agreed. John Finnie can I ask you to press or withdraw amendment eighteen. The question therefore is amendment eighteen be agreed, are we all agreed? . Will those in favour please raise their hands? Those against please raise their hands. There are seven votes for and four votes against therefore amendment 18 is agreed. I therefore call amendment 19 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 17. John Finnie, to move or not move? Move, convener. The question is amendment 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we're not agreed, there's a division. those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are seven votes, four and four votes against, therefore amendment 19 is agreed. I get a break now. I'm going to call amendment 20 in the name of John Finnie. Group with amendments are shown in the groupings. John Finnie, can I ask you to move amendment 20 and speak to the amendments in the group? John Finnie. Amendment 20 gives Scottish ministers the power to make regulations around enforcement of the workplace parking licence scheme. That includes penalty charges that the occupier will be liable for. In practice, that is expected to focus on issues around occupiers not being licensed or providing a higher number of workplace parking places than covered by the licence held. Amendment 21 gives Scottish ministers the power to specify approved devices for the collection of evidence and the process for using that evidence and proceedings related to possible failure to comply with a workplace licence scheme. For example, I understand that in notting a mobile cameras are used to monitor enforcement. Amendment 22 sets out the enforcement and investigation powers available to local authorities, including rights of entry. Those are tightly focused and targeted at investigating breaches of requirements of licence scheme and licence conditions, as well as the serving of penalty charge notices. The powers available include a right of entry and a right to require the production of information and to keep a copy of that information. The power of entry cannot be used to gain access to premises used as a dwelling. Amendment 23 allows a warrant to be obtained from a sheriff to exercise the enforcement powers in amendment 24 in circumstances where access to premises has been or is likely to be refused or where the premises are unoccupied. Amendment 24 sets out conditions for the exercise of powers under amendment 22. It requires that the warrant is enforced at a reasonable time of day. The authorised person enforcing the warrant must provide proof of identity and authorization if requested. The authorised person can take other persons' equipment as required. If they remove any items, they must leave a statement of what is taken and who took it. Where the premises are unoccupied, they must be left as secure as they were in entry. The amendment also creates offences where a person refuses to comply with a reasonable instruction or is obstructive. I must say that I am rather surprised that amendment 24A seeks to remove those offences. With schemes of this nature, any reasonable person would expect it to come with enforcement provisions. I can only imagine that the intent here is to effectively hobble the enforcement of the scheme and thus the scheme itself. I cannot support that amendment. Amendment 25 deals with the powers of entry on to Crown land and requires certain permissions to be attained before those powers can be exercised. That is a standard approach where powers of entry may be exercised in relation to such land. It does not mean that those named would be exempt from the workplace parking licensing scheme. I move amendment 20. Thank you very much, John. I am now going to call Liam Kerr's amendment to 24A, but I agree that you are speaking to him. This is an amendment in the name of Liam Kerr. He is not here obviously, so I will do my best to interpret the amendment in his absence. By leaving out subsections 7 and 8, as Mr Finlay alluded to, he seeks to remove the language around whether someone is committing an offence, how the person commits an offence and what the liability is for the committing of such an offence. My understanding is that Mr Kerr was unhappy with the idea that people will seek orders and warrants to force a way into businesses and that businesses and business owners may be subject to offences under this levy. Indeed, those licensing schemes are set up in a way that could criminalise people if they were deemed not to be enforcing the schemes. I do not think that we should be criminalising our businesses for providing parking. I think that creating an offence in the form of an amendment to a transport bill is a very odd place to start creating such offences that could result in convictions and fines that include the statutory up to the statutory maximum on people. I wonder what effect that has on people's history of criminality, whether it remains on records or whether it has any negative effect on them as individuals or as companies. That is the premise of Mr Kerr. He is not here to speak himself. I am sure that if he is interested in talking to us at stage 3, he might want to explore further. The premise of it is that it sends off a terrible message if we are giving sweeping powers to people with warrants to go in and force their way into companies and businesses simply to enforce this ridiculous tax. The other members indicated that they want to speak. Just for members' information, I tend to press on, which will take me slightly over time to the end of this section, because once the cabinet secretary has spoken and John has wound up, it is just a series of, say, cabinet secretary to you. Amendment 20 to 25, in John Finnie's name, put in place enforcement provisions in relation to workplace parking licensing schemes. Those schemes are to be enforced by way of civil penalty charges. Amendment 20 gives the Scottish ministers the power to set out the detail, or in some cases to allow schemes to set out the detail as to matters such as the level of charges, when those charges should be imposed and reviews and appeals of charges. Amendment 21 is a further power for the Scottish ministers to approve devices for use and enforcement of licensing schemes and for the use of evidence from those devices for enforcement purposes. Amendment 22 to 24 confer enforcement powers in respect of workplace parking licensing schemes on persons authorised by local authorities to exercise those powers. Those powers are narrowly constrained so that they may only be used to investigate breaches of scheme requirements or licence conditions or to serve penalty charge notices. It is anticipated that entry into premises will be arranged by agreement in such cases, but where entry is refused, there is a power to obtain a warrant from a sheriff. I consider the powers conferred by those amendments to be necessary and proportionate in dealing with the issue of workplace parking licensing schemes in order to effectively monitor and enforce any scheme that contains significant safeguards against misuse, and I support the amendments. I do not support amendment 24 in Liam Kerr's name. It is not clear why Mr Kerr would propose that obstructing a duly-authorised enforcement officer exercising powers conferred under an act of this Parliament should go unpunished, while it may be that an offence of this kind would be used sparingly in practice. Without the option, there would be nothing to discourage licence holders and others from refusing to co-operate with those tasked with monitoring compliance with those schemes. I reiterate my support for John Finnie's amendments in this group. I would ask the committee to support them, too, and I would ask Liam Kerr not to move amendment 24A, but if it is moved for the committee to reject it. John Finnie, can I ask you to wind up, please, and press or withdraw your amendment? Yes, indeed. I will not comment. I do press amendment 20. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed that there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. There were seven votes for. There were four votes against, so amendment 20 is agreed. It has been a long morning. There are a series of votes. I would urge committee members to keep their attention for these few votes as we come to the end. I call amendment 21 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 20. Can I ask John Finnie to move or not move, please? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There were seven votes for and four votes against, therefore, amendment 21 be agreed. I call amendment 22 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 20. John Finnie to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. 22. I should pay attention, griddysiwg i'n myself. The question is that Ie drwy priwlede y hub nowat Those in favour please raise their hand. Those against please raise their hands Thank you there are seven votes, four and four votes against therefor amendment 22 is agreed. I call amendment 23 in the name of Jon Finney already debated with amendment 20. Jon Finney to move or not move? The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Maen nhw'n rai oeddiwch â'u gweithio mewn gymuned. Mae'n rai oeddiwch, mae'n gyflinio'r gymuned. Mae'r gen Chynedd? Mae'r chynedd yn gwybod, maen nhw'n gweithio. Felly mae'n 7, 4 ac 4 oeddiwch â faith ein mened â'r Gweithio 23. Mae'r Glacellau Cymru yn y mwynhau John Finnie, ac mae'n defnyddio unrhyw dzolwch o'r mwynhau. Maen nhw'n gweithio Jan Finnie a'r mwynhau. Mae'n gweithio 24. those against please raise their hands If there are seven votes for and four votes against therefore amendment 24 is agreed I call the amendment 25 in the name of John Finnie already debated with amendment 20 to move or not move move annually Thank you the question is that amendment 25 be agreed Are we all agreed? We're not agreed there's a division those in favor please raise their hands those against please raise their hands there are seven votes for and four votes against Fe oedd Ymlynch Ymlynch 25 gyd yn gwneud. Felly, yn Ymlynch Ymlynch 26, yn y fanaeth John Finney, dypa yn cwrwm ymlynch Ymlynch 7, Cymru yn Ymlynch Ymlynch yw wrth yn yn Paddym 123 eich cynyd�oedd gyda姜ol yn gyweithio,埗 i mi yng Nghymru a rhai yng amateur dd wavingonleu... No, mae wedyn. щicai. Ac mae anodd ddim yn cael ff letr o ceisio rhywbeth yn byw sy'n haydd. Ar suitement yn unedig ynghyrch yn y cael ei wργiad.ull harefi! obsiw Chart�로, ar y canair i'r gweithreistau byddwyr i daihl. Narom i ddeibio'r gwir ministerion a gwennau gyrfa dd cured intestines iawn... Film yn chihael chi. I don't think you've been allowed off. I think you are going to be away, but the point is duly noted. I would like to thank everyone for taking part in this session today. Could I remind members that amendments to the remaining sections of the bill should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday 20 June with the clerks in the legislation team? Thank you very much. That concludes today's committee business and I now close the meeting.