It's good morning and welcome to the committee's 21st meeting in 2019. Can I ask everyone to please make sure that their mobile phones are on silent? We are going to move on to agenda item 1, which is the European Union withdrawal act 2018. This is the sift of two EU exit instruments, as detailed on the agenda. The Scottish government has allocated the negative procedure to both SSIs. Is the committee agreed that it is contempt with the parliamentary procedure allocated to these instruments by the Scottish Government? We are. Thank you. So we move on to agenda item 2, which is the consideration of two negative instruments as detailed on the agenda. No motions to annul or representations have been received in relation to these instruments. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments? We are agreed. So we move on to agenda item 3, and that is we have received consent notifications in relation to one UKSI on pesticides as detailed on the agenda. This instrument is being laid in the UK Parliament in relation to the European Withdrawal Act. Does anyone have any comments on this? No. So the question I have for the committee is does the committee agree to write to the Scottish Government to confirm it is contempt for the consent for the UKSI referred to in the notification be given? We are agreed. Now the Cabinet Secretary is waiting outside, so I'm briefly going to suspend the meeting to allow him to come in so we can move straight on to agenda item 4. So the meeting is now suspended. Thank you. I'm now reconvening this meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, and I could just remind those people who've come in to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent. We now move on to agenda item 4, which is the Transport Scotland build. Today we're continuing our consideration of stage 2 amendments to the Transport Scotland build. I'd like to welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and his supporting officials. I'd also like to welcome the non-committee members present. I'll explain briefly the procedure now for anyone who is watching. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and speak to all the other amendments in the group. I then will call on other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my eye. If he has not already spoken to the group, I will then invite the Cabinet Secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to vote on that amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. I remind everyone that it is only committee members who are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. I would remind committee members to please keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. Clearly raised, I would suggest, is right up in the air rather than just that because that makes it difficult for the clerks. I'm sure everyone will be looking around the table to make sure everyone else is voting as well, Mike. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I'll put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We will not go beyond amendments to part five of the bill today. I'm now going to move to the first amendment, and we are on parking prohibitions enforcement. I'd like to call amendment 145 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet Secretary, please can you move amendment 145 and speak to all the amendments in the group? Good morning, convener. The bill is introduced allows a person employed by a local authority or a person employed by a body with whom a local authority has made enforcement arrangements to issue penalty charge notices in connection with breach of the parking prohibitions. Amendment 145 is a technical amendment, which will ensure that authorised enforcement officers can either be directly employed or appointed and engaged otherwise under a contract of employment. Amendment 311 seeks to enable regulations to be made to exempt local authorities without decriminalised parking enforcement powers from the need to enforce the parking prohibition in the bill. Amendment 312 would then permit regulations to set out alternative arrangements for the enforcement of parking prohibition in the bill in those local authority areas. As the bill sets out national parking prohibitions that will apply consistently across Scotland, I do not consider it appropriate to take a power to make separate arrangements for those local authorities that have not yet applied for decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Such an approach would risk creating confusion and undermine the consistent national enforcement of those new prohibitions. It is also unclear from amendment 312 what is intended by way of alternative enforcement arrangements for the non-DPE areas or why the enforcement arrangements set out in the bill may not be appropriate for local authorities without DPE. As I have previously stated, local authorities have the option to either contract enforcement via private companies or enter into an arrangement with a neighbouring local authority for the purposes of enforcement. Amendment 313 seeks to amend section 454 to state that, when local authorities enter into arrangements with third parties in connection with the performance of any of the local authorities' functions, regarding the issue of penalty charges or enforcement and removing or disposing vehicles, the local authority will still be responsible for those functions. The amendment is unnecessary, as the bill confers statutory duties upon local authorities. Although the bill enables local authorities to contract out the performance of some of those duties to third parties, it does not in any way absolve the local authority from legal liability for their statutory obligations as a matter of basic legal principle. Therefore, I ask the committee to support amendment 145, in my name, and I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 133 and 132, and Jamie Greene not to press amendment 313. If those amendments are pressed, I would urge the committee to reject them, and I move amendment 145. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call on Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 311, and any other amendments in the group. Amendment 311, in my name, removes enforcement duties from councils who haven't decriminalised parking enforcement in areas without DPE councils will be required to enforce pavement parking. In other words, just as one type of parking violation without having the power to enforce any other, so they'll be able to ticket a car parked on a pavement but not one parked on a double-year line right next to it. In other words, some councils may have to set up an entirely new team specifically to undertake this one task. This seems completely absurd, and it's my view that enforcement of pavement parking violations should be in line with enforcement of other parking violations. In areas with decriminalised parking enforcement, councils are responsible in areas without the police app. If the Government's position is that any new offences should only be enforced by councils but not the police, then why are they not dealing with the issue of councils who have not decriminalised instead of simply creating this anomaly? Members will recall that the committee raised the issue of the onerous process councils face when it comes to decriminalising parking and urged the Government to look at this process. I'm disappointed that they haven't brought anything forward. Therefore, in the absence of any action from the Government, I have brought forward this amendment. With regards to amendment 312, it's not clear if enforcement responsibilities would automatically fall to the police if removed from these councils. Amendment 312 simply allows the Government to bring forward regulations clarifying this position, i.e. that enforcement should be carried out by the police. I ask Jamie Greene now to speak to amendment 313 and any other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. My short amendment 313, I think that the Cabinet Secretary in his opening comments quite eloquently described its purpose and its intention. I am pleased to hear the response from the Cabinet Secretary that he feels that there is a strong enough legal basis that local authorities are responsible for the legal administration and responsibility of enforcement. At this point, I stemmed from a conversation that I had about concerns about contracting out of the enforcement to third-party organisations such as the case in private parking, for example, where there are concerns about how those processes might be administered. I am pleased to hear that. On the back of the Cabinet Secretary's comments, I will withdraw that amendment given his assurances and thank him for it. On the other amendments in this group briefly, I am pleased to support the Cabinet Secretary. Colin Smyth's amendment raises a very interesting point. We may get to discuss this later when I bring up some other amendments around enforcement of parking, specifically around schools. He raises a wider issue, and that is a conversation that I hope we have at some point around who is not a case of what is legal or not legal but who enforces what and how easy it is for wardens and decriminalised parking areas and the police to mutually administer any regulations in this bill, whether it is pavement parking, double parking or, indeed, in considerate or obstructive parking in our towns. I think that that has perhaps raised the wider issue, so we will support that for 311 and 312. No other member has indicated that they wish to speak in this section and say, Cabinet Secretary, could you briefly wind up please? To emphasise the point, the decision to decriminalise the enforcement of parking within a local authority area is a matter for the local authority to decide. It stands at the present moment that some 21 local authorities have decriminalised the process. Another two are presently considering that approach. We would encourage others to continue to consider doing that, but it is entirely within their gift to be able to take this process forward, which is a fairly straightforward process for them to do so. It is important that we have a national consistency to the approach that we take in these matters, and that is exactly what amendment I have brought forward seeks to do. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The question, therefore, I have, is that amendment 145 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I am now going to call amendment 146 in the name of Graham Simpson, but I think that Jamie Greene wants to say something on this. Yes, thank you. I have spoken to Mr Simpson and given the apparent lack of support for his amendment 115, he will withdraw all amendments in this park, including 146. I am happy to name them if required, but otherwise just leave it at that. So they are not moved, therefore I am going to call the Cabinet Secretary. I will call amendment 147 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, who is already debated with amendment 122. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally, please. Moved. The question is that amendment 147 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question, therefore, now is that section 48 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. We are now moving on to parking prohibition, penalty charges, application of penalty charges, and I am going to call amendment 310 in the name of Jamie Greene, group with amendments 314, 157 and 315. Jamie Greene to move amendment 310 and speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Those short amendments deal with the penalty charges that are raised as a result of the prohibitions in this part of the bill. The first one, 310, basically sets out the framework of what I think how local authorities should use these revenues for. We discussed this with low-emission zones, and I think that there was wide acceptance that any revenues raised from the low-emission zones should be used and put towards good use. However, in the low-emission zones, there was a structure for setting objectives and that the revenues achieved would be linked to those objectives. I think that that was the right approach that we all agreed on in considering those amendments. In this part of the bill, given that there is a lack of objectives to the prohibitions of pavement and double parking, there is nothing to peg the responsibility of where that revenue goes to. I have listed three categories in subsections, such as public transport services, roads and other transport infrastructure, to try to link it back to the theme and topic of transport, simply to ensure that local authorities spend that money on improving public transport roads and transport infrastructure. That is the main premise of 314 and 315, where technical consequentials are the result of 310. On 157, I believe that we are happy to support the cabinet secretary's amendment. Can I ask you to speak to amendment 157 and other amendments in the group? In section 55, the bill enables Scottish ministers to make regulations regarding the keeping of accounts by local authorities in connection with the enforcement of the parking prohibitions and about the purpose for which any surplus in those accounts may be used. Amendment 157, in my name, is a technical provision ensuring that those regulations may make provision about the publication of a statement of accounts. That ensures consistency in what the statements of accounts should contain and is also in keeping with the regulation making power for local authority accounts for low-emission zones under section 22. Amendment 310, in Jamie Greene's name, would constrain how local authorities could use the income derived from enforcement of parking prohibitions in the bill, providing that this income could only be used in certain transport-related purposes and around the local authorities area. Amendment 314 and 315 would make related changes to ministers' powers to make regulations about local authorities' accounts, removing the power to specify in regulation how a surplus in a local authority account could be applied and adding a new power for ministers to specify the information that accounts must contain at how local authorities have complied with their duties under Amendment 310. I have sympathy with what Jamie Greene is seeking to achieve here, indeed, in making regulations under section 55 of the bill. It would be my intention to specify that surplus on accounts connected with enforcement of parking prohibitions will be required to be used for specified transport-related purposes. In my view, the flexibility afforded by regulations is important to ensure that the transport purposes for which funds can be used are not drawn too narrowly and allow scope to respond to changing priorities. That said, I am happy to consider before stage 3 whether it can be made clearer on the face of the bill that the purposes for which this can be specified in regulations are limited to transport-related purposes. As such, I would ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 310, 314 and 315, but if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them, and I would ask the committee to support amendment 157 in my name. I have to step with all my political colleagues and almost everybody in the Parliament in that, as a matter of principle, I oppose hypothecation. The reason for that is that I believe that where funds are raised or penalties are implied for public purposes, that is perfectly proper. When funds are spent, they should be allocated to purposes that serve a public purpose, regardless of where the money may come from. There is a practical issue about hypothecation as well, which would apply in this particular case, as it would in others. That is the success of penalty charges should lead to their raising no revenue whatsoever. Therefore, that impoverishes the practical purpose to which one is hypothecating the money. I think that that is always a practical difficulty. I do understand that the introduction of hypothecation in policy areas generally often leads to that being a lever to persuade the general public that the policy intention is a good one, because the money will be spent for good purposes. I am no objection to charges being made for services rendered, of course. Having said all that, convener, I am not intending to make an issue of it when we come to make our decisions, but I do think that, as a permanent objection to hypothecation, I always feel uncomfortable about this sort of thing and will continue to do so. I do not recognise that there are probably only two other people in the entire Parliament who agree with me. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to wind up and press a withdraw your amendment? Mr Stevenson, for his comments, I am still entirely unclear if he supports my amendments or not following his comments. It is very early in the morning to talk about hypothecation of policy, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary is all over this. I appreciate the feedback. I said that those amendments were meant earnestly and in good faith to try and, as Mr Stevenson alluded to, I give the public a general message that the revenues that will be achieved from any such prohibitions will be put to good use. That is an important point, as we discussed with the low-missions zones to take the public with us on this positive journey to improve driver behaviour. Indeed, it is important that they see what the consequence of that behaviour is, both for financial penalty point of view but also where that revenue might be spent. I appreciate that, when you put prescriptive lists on the face of a bill in terms of how money can be spent, it may come across as a constraint. That, of course, is not the intention, but there is an intention to narrow focus the guidance of how that money will be spent if the cabinet secretary is willing and his team to discuss with me and others before stage 3 how we could use the bill to strengthen that reinforcement so that it is not just up to the whim of regulation because, again, we have not seen what that regulation may state, so it is hard to tell if it meets the needs of the intention of this amendment. My office and I will be very happy to have a productive conversation about how we can come up with some words to that effect at stage 3 and that premise would not move 3.10. Thank you. As Jamie Greene wishes to withdraw amendment 3.10, I have to ask if any member wishes to object. No one wishes to object. Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. I would normally call amendment 148 in the name of Graham Simpson, but I believe that that has not moved, Mr Greene. Is that right? Therefore, I call amendment 149 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, who is already debated with amendment 122. Cabinet Secretary, please move formally. The question is that amendment 149 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. We then move on to accessibility of information on parking prohibitions and penalty charges, and I'm going to call amendment 217 in the name of Pauline McNeill, group with amendment 218. Pauline McNeill, can you move amendment 217? Thank you very much, convener, and yes, I'll move amendment 217 in my name. It was recently drawn to my attention in Glasgow that parking penalty notices lack plain English in relation to the reference of the right to challenge and the appeal of the notice. The right of appeal and the right to challenge any decision is essential requirement of any system. The public are suspicious that local authorities are driven by revenue considerations when tickets are issued, so local authorities who issue parking notice are through enforcement should not be perceived as purely a revenue issue, and in all fairness they should design a system that makes it relatively easy for those who believe that they are able to challenge their notice are able to do so. I've gone through all of the visuals that I can get, and I'm happy to share this with the cabinet secretary just to illustrate my point, which is that when a parking notice is issued, it's all geared towards payment methods. There's a tiny little bit of the small print which says notice to owner will be described how to make formal representations regarding the issue of the penalty notice. I do recall in days gone by that your grounds of appeal would be published a bit clearer. I've gone through the various stages as far as I can get to look at the screens and know where does it say that you have the right to appeal and challenge all geared towards payment. In a sense, I'm probing this issue because I hope that the cabinet secretary is making with me on the point of making it relatively easy for people to see what their rights are. I had my researchers check the website to see how easy they found it to find out how to appeal. The evidence that I found wasn't really that easy to find out. It was there, but it wasn't really up front. I just think that it is the right to challenge a decision by a public body, even if it's a parking notice. It's a fundamental right, and amendment 218 is making sure that that information is accessible to those with any disability. Thank you, Pauline. Mike Rumbles, you'd like to say something. Pauline McNeill, perhaps you could address this point in summing up. I absolutely agree with 217. In practical terms, regulations must include provision requiring that notification of a penalty charge.  If you could just tell us in summing up how that would happen, because I don't understand quite what we're asking for here. Maybe we could come to that in the summing up. Now the members indicate that they wish to speak Cabinet Secretary. Amendment 217.218, from Pauline McNeill's seat, to introduce a requirement that regulations associated with the enforcement of the parking prohibitions must ensure that penalty charge notices contain information on how to appeal and are available in different formats that are accessible to individuals who have a sensory, physical or mental disability. I recognise the importance of making sure that the process of enforcement and appeals, including the information contained in penalty charge notices, is both clear and transparent for everyone. I'm happy to confirm on the record today that the regulations that are to be made will make provision regarding reviews and appeals, including the grounds of review or appeal in connection with the imposition of a penalty charge. The design of the penalty charge notice, which is currently used by 21 local authorities in Scotland, already provides information to the motorist on how to appeal against the issue of the penalty charge notice and what happens thereafter. It's intended that the regulations that are made under section 491 of the bill will make provision to ensure that the content of penalty charge notices for these parking prohibitions contains similar information and therefore do not consider that amendment 217 is therefore necessary. In relation to amendment 218, the regulations will also make provision about the notification of a penalty charge, including the form, content and method of notification, and there is ample flexibility in that regulation making power in section 491 to ensure that accessibility requirements are taken into account in that regard. In addition to that, the committee will be aware that, under the Equality Act 2010, local authorities must make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers that may discriminate against disabled people. Such reasonable adjustments would already include ensuring that penalty notice charges are available in accessible formats such as large font or in braille. I note also that the 2010 act already contains clear definitions of what is meant by a disability, whereas amendment 218 does not. I therefore ask Pauline McNeill not to press amendment 217 or 218, but if they are pressed, I would ask the committee not to support these amendments. The amendment was really essentially driving at what the cabinet secretary has outlined as trying to identify mainly sensory or disability impairments that might make it difficult for someone to understand exactly how to go through the process. I'm content, convener, with the cabinet secretary's response to that, and I'm pleased that that has been addressed further in the bill. Therefore, I will not be pressing my amendments. Thank you, Pauline. As Pauline McNeill wishes to withdraw amendment 217, I have to ask, does any member wish to object? No member wishes to object, therefore the amendment is withdrawn. I therefore call amendment 218 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 217. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move? Not move. Amendment is not moved. I therefore call amendment 311 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 145. Excuse me. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Move, convener. The question, therefore, is amendment 311 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division, therefore those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There were five votes for and six votes against, therefore, amendment 311 is not agreed. I call amendment 312 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 145. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Not move, convener. The question, therefore, is that section 49 be agreed? Are we all agreed? I call amendment 150 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 115 but understand it is not moved. Therefore, I call amendment 151 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 122 Cabinet Secretary to move formally, please. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed, therefore, I call amendment 152 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 59. Cabinet Secretary to move formally, please. Lift. The question, therefore, is that amendment 152 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question now is that section 50 be agreed? Are we all agreed? I therefore call amendment 153 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 115 but I understand this is not moved. Not moved. Therefore, I call amendment 154 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 122. Cabinet Secretary to move formally, please. Lift. The question, therefore, is that amendment 154 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question, therefore, now is that section 51 be agreed? Are we all agreed? I therefore call amendment 155 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 115 and understand that this is not moved. Correct. Not moved. Therefore, I call amendment 156 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 122. Cabinet Secretary to move formally, please. Moved. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. The question, therefore, is that section 52 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question, therefore, is section 53 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 313 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 145. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. The question, therefore, is section 54 be agreed? Are we agreed? Yes. I therefore call amendment 314 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 310. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved.— Felly weithio fen先生i i gafodd gyda'r noblegrwyd? Mydddo'r cwestiwn yn ydweud yr Ym1-57 a amgarroedfa? Myddo'r cwestiwn yn digwydd. Mae'n gweld ythegyr yng nghymru, Rydym yn ym3-10. Rydym yn ym3-10, Rydym yn flynyddoedd, rydym yn llygiedad, rydym yn llygiedad? Rhyw y byddai'n cwestiwn yn ym55 a mgarroedfa? Mgarroedfa? Mae'n gweithio ym 5, rydym yn llygiedad? Rydym yn llygiedad?ín ym56 a mgarroedfa? Diolch. Diolch. o phobl o hoffa i gadaelurau o teimlo'r reddynt yn gyffredinol oedd yn ei cyfasidio'r hoffa i gyd-aardd o bobl o'r hoffa i gyd-aardd o hoffa i gyd-aardd o hoffa i gyd-aardd, o fferdd i'r hoffa i gyd-aardd o hoffa i gyd-aardd. Fodd o reflech chi'n g примu hyn o fe gweld hynny, wedi cyd-daeth a'i gwaddu o hyfforddiant arwot i mor gwleitio ti o resilient. Heriad, mae'r Mhwyf amendment 158. Mae gynnwys yn ddenedig ar hyn o gallwn ddarparu ddaeth. Roedd y Minister hwnnw ni bod yn ei cwmatter o'r bysgol ar draws, pan nad yw, ond rydyn ni'n ymddianon ni'n mynd gweld o cwmbllforinh committeenau o hyv pog li allai unigwrs mawr. H dementia wrth gwrs ymdeinol yn y cyffiziwn ar WE57 hwnny'n hyff gearbox, ang�도wnaeth boardyawn Menwyr temperwr 159 a'r cwmysgol ar YmmedgWhy Justowski a fellynd iddyn nhw yn aelio adreffёт crraeg nag phloeddtaethai Boyle gan y Moeddan Fellyarn hwnnw i ddigon peddwod o sig i gyfradys y Clwent amendment 159 be agreed? Are we all agreed? I call amendment 160 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 122. Cabinet Secretary, can you move formally please? The question is amendment 160 be agreed? Are we all agreed? I call amendment 161 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 115, but understand that this is not to be moved. I therefore call amendment 162 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary in a group on its own. Cabinet Secretary, can you move formally please? The question is amendment 162 is a technical amendment that seeks to ensure that if a local authority is considering exempting a pavement from the pavement parking prohibition or looking to place a traffic sign or a proof device, it should only do so with the consent or in conjunction with the relevant traffic authority should it not be the move. That removes any ambiguity in this area and I therefore move amendment 162. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. No other members have indicated that they wish to speak, so, Cabinet Secretary, I'm assuming that you don't want to wind up. Therefore, the question is that amendment 162 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question, therefore, is that section 58 be agreed? Are we all agreed? I therefore call them, we're moving on to sorry, parking on a cycle track and I'd like to call amendment 163 in the name of Colin Smyth in a group on its own. Colin Smyth to move and speak to amendment 163 please. Thank you, convener. I'm happy to move amendment 163 in my name, which looks at addressing an issue arising from the decriminalisation of parking enforcement, which has been raised with me by a number of local councils. Last week at committee, the cabinet secretary confirmed that parking on cycle lanes is banned under the 1984 Roads Act, but there is a problem with the enforcement of the ban. When a mandatory cycle lane has been introduced without a TRO, enforcement cannot be decriminalised. In practical terms, that means that often only the police are able to enforce the ban, even in areas with decriminalised parking enforcement, where the council would enforce other parking offences. That is a clear anomaly. Parking on cycle lanes is a hazard, and it's right that it's banned, but that ban is meaningless if it isn't properly enforced. While appreciating enforcement can be decriminalised through the use of a TRO, that places a significant burden on councils simply to give them the power to enforce something that is already prohibited. This amendment seeks to address that by allowing local authorities to issue civil fines on the ban. I have suggested regulations here, but I am happy to discuss alternative approaches if members believe that there is a different way of achieving the same aim. I tried to submit a very similar amendment, and the legislation team advised that Mr Smith had beat me to it. I am very happy to support the amendment, but I appreciate that if it's technically not the way to approach the issue, I'd be happy to work with other parties and the cabinet secretary on a suitable wording. If Mr Smith is minded not to move, I wouldn't push the amendment, but he does raise a very important point. Parking on cycle tracks and cycle lanes has become an issue that we spoke about at length and how we address that through regulation. To use the transport bill as a method of doing so is an important point to raise. We probably all share concern over it, but it's just the case of how we go about making sure that that practice is properly addressed, and I'm sure that the cabinet secretary will enlighten us. No other member wishes to speak, so Cabinet Secretary, over to you. Amendment 163 calls for a new part of the bill that relates to parking on a cycle track, although I appreciate the intention behind the Collins Smith amendment to encourage more active travel. In my view, that amendment is not required. The Collins Smith amendment is seeking to amend the Rhoads Scotland Act 1984 by inserting a new subsection 6A into section 129 of the act to confer powers on local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices on motorists who park on a cycle track. However, it is an unnecessary amendment as parking on a cycle track is already a criminal offence under section 1296 of the 1984 act. If a local authority wishes to charge drivers for parking on cycle lanes, it can do so by obtaining decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Currently, 21 local authorities have these powers, and they can undertake enforcement restrictions on cycle tracks. I also note for completeness that there are some technical difficulties with the amendment in that it seeks to place the regulation-making power within section 129 of the Rhoads Scotland Act, which deals with miscellaneous summary offences, despite the fact that the amendment does not seek to create a new offence. It instead seeks to enable regulations to be made that can confer power on local authorities to charge motorists. Furthermore, the amendment refers to fixed penalty notices, but those can only be issued in Scotland by the Procurator Fiscal or a police constable, and they are backed with a power of criminal prosecution if unpaid. The appropriate term for a local authority charge is a penalty charge notice. Even if those technical difficulties were resolved, I consider the proposed amendment to be unrequired, given that the powers already exist in both criminal and civil law. Therefore, a DAS calls not to press amendment 13163. However, if press a DAS a committee to reject it, do Jamie Greene wish to make her intervention? If I could. Are you confirming that any form of parking on any form of cycle line where it has not been allowed via a decriminalised process by a local authority is enforceable by either a police officer or a traffic warden in decriminalised parking areas? Does that include both advisory cycle lines and more statutory formal types of cycle lines? No. To be clear, if it is an area that has not been decriminalised, it is a matter for the police to enforce it. If criminal law powers in order to deal with that is in a decriminalised area, it is for the local authority to take it forward through that process. However, local authorities also have a responsibility to make sure that they have TROs in place for the enforcement of that, which is a legal requirement to make the provision enforceable in law. That is why local authorities have to put a TRO in place in order to be able to issue a fixed charge notice. Colin, I am going to ask you to wind up and maybe push that question a bit more during that process. Thank you very much, convener. I think that the cabinet secretary has missed the point of this particular amendment. I am happy for him to intervene to clarify the position, but it is my clear understanding, and it has certainly been raised by a number of local authorities, that where they have decriminalised parking, they cannot enforce that unless they have passed a TRO, a TRO is not required for a mandatory cycle lane, as far as I am aware. However, if they have not passed a TRO, they cannot enforce—I am happy to take an intervention on that. For them to enforce any provision under the decriminalised arrangements, they have to have a TRO in place. They have to have a legal basis in which to enforce that penalty. You cannot have a provision where they simply can issue fixed penalty charges for anything that they choose to consider that they want to issue a fixed penalty charge. There needs to be a legal basis in which for that to be provided. There is no way of getting round that. You need to have a provision in place that gives them the power to be able to issue the fixed charge notice for that particular obstruction on a cycle way or where it is on an area of the street that they are parking on, in which to have a TRO in place. It is a part that they cannot get round. They have to put in place to make it enforceable. Herein lies the anomaly. The Government currently allows a local authority to introduce a mandatory cycle lane without a TRO, but it then says that, unless you have a TRO, you cannot enforce that cycle way. Is the point not that, if the local authority cannot enforce it, the police can enforce it so that somebody can enforce it? Therefore, there is the anomaly that we have a situation where everything else in a local authority area where it has been decriminalised is a matter for the council except for cycle lanes. The question that the Government needs to answer is why does it allow a local authority to have a mandatory cycle lane without a TRO if the Government is saying that you have to have a TRO in order to enforce a penalty for parking in a cycle lane? We are confusing an issue here. That is the need for the councils to have a TRO in place in order to be able to enforce a fixed charge notice. They need to put that in place. For a cycle lane, if it is an advisory, they do not have to have a TRO in place, but if it is obstructed, clearly there is an issue where the police could actually deal with that through criminal law, but where it has been decriminalised, they need to have a TRO in place. That is how the process works and how it operates. There is no way around that particular process. If they do not have a TRO in place for a parking restriction at schools, then effectively they could be in a position where they cannot legally enforce a fixed charge notice. Colin, I want to come back to you to continue winding up and then to enlarge the information given to you by the cabinet secretary, press or withdraw your amendment. Colin, that is very much convenient. The committee has heard on a number of occasions the challenges of the TRO process for local authorities. Indeed, it was one of the explanations given by the Government to knock back a £20 million bill that they would look at the enforcement of that. The reality is with or without a TRO parking and a mandatory cycle lane is banned, but, as it stands, that cannot be enforced by councils even in areas with decriminalised parking enforcement without a TRO. I think that it is an anomaly here. I am happy not to move the amendment at this stage, hoping that we can discuss a way forward on that, but I reserve the right to bring it back at stage 3 if those issues are not addressed, because there are concerns that local councils have raised and I hope that the Government will take that on board. Colin Smyth wishes to withdraw amendment 1.6.3. Does any member object? Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. We now move on to working place parking and the establishment and review of licensing schemes. I am going to call amendment 7 in the name of John Finnie Group with other amendments, as shown in the grouping. I would like to point out to members that if amendment 8e is agreed, I cannot call amendment 8a. If amendment 8b is agreed, I cannot call amendment 8g. If amendment 8g is agreed, I cannot call amendment 8c. All due to pre-emptions, it will all become clearer when we get to it. I am therefore going to call John Finnie to move amendment 7 and speak to the other amendments in the group. John Finnie. Many thanks, convener. I am very pleased to speak to my amendments in the Workplace Park and Levy. As you will be aware, over the past few months, there has been a lot of coverage in this issue, much of it ill-informed. As we consider the amendments today, it is important to focus on what the amendments do and the positive benefits that the Workplace Park and Levy can yield. Let us take a step back. We are facing a climate emergency, so we need as many tools available as possible to address this. No one is saying that the Workplace Park and Levy will do this alone, but it is clear that there will need to be as many levers available as possible. We also have an issue that local authorities need tools to manage transport in their areas and to raise their revenue to help them to do this. My amendments are based on the principles of localism. It will be for local authorities to determine if they wish to implement a workplace park and levy, and there is no requirement to do so. I will pick up the details of the proposals when I speak to subsequent amendments, but I would like to pick up on some key points. This is a power, not a duty. It empowers local authorities to act and make decisions locally. Those decisions have to be made within a framework set by primary legislation, regulations and guidance. That framework has a key underpinning of requirements of consultation, local impact assessment and investment of funds raised from the levy into local transport projects identified in a local transport strategy. Fundamentally, the proposals address issues that we all agree need to be addressed. The First Minister has declared a climate emergency and we recognise transport's role in that. I will turn to the detail of my amendments. Amendment 7, together with amendment 9, permits local authorities to put in place a licensing scheme requiring any person providing workplace parking at their premises to hold a licence and to pay charges under that licence by reference to the number of parking places provided. That is a premises-based levy. Local authorities who wish to introduce a licensee scheme for workplace parking must have a local transport strategy and must consider that introducing the levy will facilitate the achievement of policies in that strategy. One of the criticisms of workplace parking levy is that it is simply a money-raising measure. That is not the case. The link to a local transport strategy means that a levy can only be introduced with a clearly articulated strategic context. I beg your pardon, amendment 8 defines what constitutes a workplace parking place. Workplace parking places will be identified by a reference to the reason for parking and to who is parking. A workplace parking place will accordingly be a parking place at any premises that is occupied for the purpose of attending a place where the person providing that parking place carries out a business. Business is a wide meaning, encompassing not only carrying out any trade, profession, vocation or undertaking, but also the provision of education and the exercise of public functions. Only parking for business purposes, including parking by-workers, agents and suppliers of the person providing the parking place, is covered. Parking is in purely a personal capacity such as shopping at a local supermarket is not. The amendment also gives Scottish ministers a power to vary those provisions by regulation. That is a necessary flexibility to respond to changing and future circumstances. Amendment 10 is really important, as it sets out the detailed requirements for consultation on a proposed scheme and impact assessments. There has been criticism of the lack of consultation on the proposal and the fact that there has been no impact assessment. I welcome the work that the committee has done with the evidence sessions and the online survey. It was really interesting to hear a nuanced and balanced argument from a range of views, most certainly here. On this point of consultation, can you just clarify and confirm that if we are only enabling the legislation and therefore a council, if we do pass the legislation, would have to then go through its own process, so Glasgow or any other council would then do its own consultation on exactly what they were going to do. Is that correct? That is correct, and I will come on to that. The amendment underpins the reality of the consultative nature of these proposals. There are strong duties on local authorities to consult on a scheme, not just a proposed scheme, but if they wanted to amend or revoke a scheme. There has to be clarity on the objectives of a scheme, the area in which it will cover, exemptions, what people can expect to pay, what the funds will be used on and how it will address the objectives set out in the local transport strategy. There has to be an impact assessment on those who may have to pay charges and on the environment. Amendment 11 gives the Scottish ministers the power to make regulations about the procedures to make, amend and revoke workplace parking schemes. Amendment 12 gives ministers and local authorities the power to have a local inquiry into proposals to make, amend or revoke workplace parking levy schemes. I very much see that as a tool to be used if needed, rather than as a regular part of the development of a workplace parking levy. The amendment also requires that a local authority has to await the completion of the inquiry before implementing any proposal. Something that you might imagine is self-evident, but it is important to spell that out in the legislation. Amendments 13 and 14 allow a licensing scheme to set out procedural matters in relation to grant an issue of licences, licenced conditions and so on, and to specify what must and may be included in licences. I am turning to amendment 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D scoping content of the licensing schemes. I will now turn to amendment 7A and start with my colleague Mike Rumbles. Amendment 7A seeks to ensure that licences are only acquired in order to provide more than 10 working parking places. I do not think that this is appropriate to be as restrictive as this on the face of the bill. Local authorities may, in their schemes, as Nostingham did in theirs, decide that people providing below a specified number of parking places should be exempt. However, whether it is appropriate and what the number should be is best determined with regard to local circumstances. There should also be flexibility to change that number as and when appropriate. Pauline McNeill's amendments 7B and 7C are concerned with specifying particular assessments around displacement, impacts on poverty and implications for workers that a local authority should carry out in advance of a scheme. My amendment 10 requires that, before making, amending or revoking a scheme, a local authority should prepare and publish an assessment of the impacts of the proposal, specifically on persons who may have to pay charges and on the environment. I believe that this addresses the aim of Pauline McNeill's amendments. Peter Chapman's amendment 7D would require a scheme to be reviewed annually. On the face of it, the amendment looks to be a simple tweak to improve accountability, but under my amendment, local authorities will have to set out how they will review the operation and effect of the scheme, and I am minded to let local authorities make that decision. The amendments 8E, 8A, 8F, 8B, 8G, 8C, 8H and 8D are intended to leave out the definition of workplace parking, any parking by what is referred to in the amendment as a go-at-business customer. Those are people who, in the course of their business, park at the premises of another business with whom they are a client or customer. An example might be a property developer parking for a meeting with their accountant. Perhaps Mr Rumble's concern is that this might catch people parking at supermarkets to pick up their shopping, and I covered that earlier, so I hope that that concern has been addressed. That is about parking in the course of business only. It is not clear to me what Mike Rumbles is seeking to achieve with his amendment 8B. If his intention is to remove parking by students and others attending education or training courses, then this amendment will not have the effect because it would still be part of a definition of a workplace parking place in subsection 1 of my amendment 8. However, in any event, there is no obvious reason why students should not be required to park in towns of the city where those levies are introduced. Indeed, young people are a key demographic that we should be encouraging to adopt active and sustainable models of transport. Dean Lockhart's amendment 8E has the effect of restricting the definition of workplace parking to parking by workers and members of bodies whose affairs are controlled by their members. That would mean that charges could not be levied for parking by agents or suppliers of a business, business customers or visitors, or people attending a course of education or training. The question that I would have to ask is why we should exclude those groups. It may be a concern that business customers cover people parking in a local supermarket, but I say again that that is simply not the case. Dean Lockhart's amendment F removes parking provided by a third party from the definition of workplace parking. In practice, that would mean that, if a company leases spaces in another premises to provide workplace parking, no charges would be payable. Again, the question is why. If it is not only against the spirit of the proposal, but it could create a massive loophole. Amendments 8G and 8H are concerned with definitions. The effect of 8G removes bit definitions of business, business customer, business visitor and government department. That is similar to Mike Rumble's amendment 80, but it also appears to exclude parking at premises used by government departments and other public bodies. That appears to be very unfair. What principal reason should there be exempting such bodies from the levy that others have to pay? I wonder if that was the intention of the amendment. Amendment 8H modifies the definition of a worker and would mean that a charge arising from a miscue could only be applied in respect of parking by permanent full-time workers. Aside from being against the spirit of the scheme, it creates potential loopholes and provides a potential incentive for employers not to offer full-time contracts so as to avoid paying the levy. Again, surely, that is not the intention. Mike Rumble's amendment 8D removes Scottish ministers' powers by regulation to alter the circumstances in which workplace is provided. In practice, that would mean that categories set out and amendment 8 were fixed and could not later be adjusted if need be, depending on experience from how schemes are operating without primary legislation. Regulations are subject to scrutiny by Parliament, and amendment 8D would make the scheme inflexible. Amendments 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D—John Mason's amendment 9A is an interesting one—by seeking to extend the powers to make a workplace parking licence scheme to a regional transport partnership, it recognises that transport patterns and issues are not set by local authority boundaries. That is why amendment 8D allows for joint working by local authorities. Does he see any role for RTPs? We had the example that Colin Smyth gave of people coming from one area into a city paying the fee, but where they came from maybe would not benefit. We also had the idea of parking ride and nottingham, where parking ride might be in a separate local authority area, so would that just be a voluntary process? Would he not see the RTPs of any role in that? I think that in any case they have an overarching role with regard to their constituent parts, if you like, but the scheme is very clear that my amendments would allow for joint working by local authorities, and I believe that that better approach is because there are unintended consequences of RTPs. Allowing powers to be exercisable concurrently by local authorities and RTPs could additionally give rise to the potential for confusion and, indeed, duplication, which none of us want. Mike Rumble's amendment C attempts to make a precondition that a local authority can only make a scheme if it is satisfied that there are adequate public transport services in an area. Superficially, that looks attractive, but it falls down in a number of ways. How does one define adequate public transport? Fundamentally, improving public transport may be the objective in the local transport strategy that the scheme is being set up to support, and, fundamentally, the focus should be on local decision making. I have just brief comments that I have got a number to go. I appreciate that this is time consuming. I am being patient these listening. John, keep continuing. Colin Smyth's amendment 9B would make ministerial approval a precondition of a scheme. That goes against the very principle of localism that the scheme is founded on. I believe that the power of local accountable decision making is important, and that underpins my amendments. Jamie Greene's amendment 9D seeks to impose a whole number of conditions on a scheme. Those range from constraints to making of a scheme through to restrictions on how the scheme operates. The amendment is a classic case of unnecessary micro-management. What is wrong with local authorities making decisions on the basis of impact assessments and full consultation? Jamie Greene's amendment 10D calls for a range of reports to be prepared by the local authority. My amendment 10, in subsection 4, already requires an assessment on the effects of persons who may have to pay the charges and on the environment. I cannot see what amendment 10D adds to this. Colin Smyth's amendment 10A requires local authorities to hold a referendum on whether proposed workplace parking licence schemes should proceed, and 10B gives Scottish ministers the power to make provision about the franchise, conduct and administration of a referendum. I have to ask Colin Smyth why he has so little faith in our local authorities. Under my amendments, local authorities will have to consult on the scheme, and they are, as we are, subject to the referendum of the ballot box. Jamie Greene's amendment 10A requires the statement of scheme objectives, says how the authority will use the net proceeds of the scheme. My amendment 10, in subsection 3, already requires a local authority to set out how it intends to apply the net proceeds of a scheme, so that would be an unnecessary duplication. Jamie Greene's amendment 10F and Peter Chapman's amendment 10G seek to add specific assessment categories that a local authority must carry out. Jamie Greene requires this assessment for local businesses and island communities. Peter Chapman's amendment also requires for local businesses and island communities, as well as local authority revenue, schools, public bodies and other statutory bodies and health boards. The requirement to carry out an assessment of those affected by the levy is already there in my amendment, and it is not clear to me what those amendments are. Jamie Greene's amendment 10C requires an assessment of the effects of a proposed scheme on the displacement of vehicles and the resulting effect of residents in or near the area to which the proposed scheme relates. This is an important issue, one that I would expect to be picked up by the assessment of the scheme proposals on the environment, which my amendment already requires. Amendment 12B from Jamie Greene would allow the Scottish Parliament by a majority vote to cause a local inquiry to be held into a proposal for a workplace parking licence scheme, but my view again is that this is a local authority matter best dealt with at local authority level, and we need to respect that. Amendment 13A from Jamie Greene appears to do two things. By removing power from Scottish ministers, the power for Scottish ministers to require or permit licensing schemes to make provisions about reviews of and appeals against decisions in relation to workplace parking licenses, and there would be no provision for such reviews and appeals. The second thing is that it removes the offence of intentionally providing false or misleading information in or in connection with licence applications. That means that there would be no specific offence directed at fraudulent statements in licence applications. Again, I have to ask, does Jamie Greene really want to remove rights of appeal and encourage fraudulent statements? Jamie Greene's 14A seeks to remove the requirement that workplace parking licenses specify the maximum number of vehicle so that it may be part of the premises subject to that licence. That is important for establishing licensing requirements, but local authorities will have to do this in order to run a scheme as a key part of establishing the charged due. As such, I cannot support that amendment. Jamie Greene's amendment 318 introduces a powerful local authority residence to petition the local authority for a review of a workplace parking licensing scheme. Where a petition is signed by more than 20 per cent of residents in the area, the authority must carry out the review. In practice, what does that represent? The amendment appears to be trying to open up another front in the campaign against workplace parking lilies. My proposals are founded on principles of localism, underpinned by consultation, requirements to carry out impact assessments and, fundamentally, the ballot box. I believe that those are the fundamentals that we should be guided by. With those factors underpinning workplace parking schemes, the amendment is at best unnecessary and at worst a way for a minority to frustrate the successful operation of such schemes by local authorities. Convener, that addresses all the amendments in the group, and I move amendment 7. Thank you, Mr Finnie. Just by my calculations, and I understand that you had a lot of grant cover, that, if we all take a similar time, we will be not finished before the planning session this afternoon. Bear in mind that Mr Finnie was introducing a major amendment. There was a certain amount of leeway. If I could ask members to remember that other members wish to speak, and therefore their contributions should be as concise as they can make them. On that basis, I call Mr Rumbles to move amendment 7A. Mike. Thank you, convener. Very brief, I'm disappointed when I've heard from John Finnie because there are some very constrictive amendments here, which he is opposing them all. I just want to make a brief comment. 7A, I'm trying to avoid the risk of judicial review of this legislation because I'm very well aware that, in planning law, in a change of use or other issues of planning, there is a requirement to have workplace parking. If we approve this unamended, then I do genuinely believe that there is a real risk of judicial review, especially for some smaller companies with the supplies to. On 8A, it's all very well for John Finnie to say that business customer doesn't include supermarket customers. We've got John Finnie's word for that, but we're making the law, and the law says it includes the customers of a business. What I'm trying to do is remove that, so we don't charge customers of supermarkets and everything else. We only have John Finnie's word for that, but we have to look at the law that we are making. I won't say much more except that I find it completely amazing that John Finnie does not wish to accept my amendment 9C. The whole purpose of his amendment, the whole purpose of it is 9C, that the local authority proposing to make the scheme is satisfied that there is an adequate level of public transport services. That is the point of John Finnie's amendment. If you won't amend my amendment to do that, it makes this whole thing a farce. No, because I've finished speaking. Thank you. I'm now going to call Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 7D and any other amendments in the group that he wishes to do. Thank you, convener. Very briefly, my amendment 7D simply means that if a workplace parking level is to be introduced, there must be a review done annually on it. I think that this is important to assess the impact that it is having on the local workforce and employers. I don't believe that it's sufficient to allow local authorities to decide when and if the world review what the WPL is achieving. I think that that allows far too much leeway, so I think that an annual assessment is correct. My other amendment 10G simply outlines various bodies that must be consulted on before a local authority can prepare and publish on a workplace parking levee. I think that again this is a very relevant and modest amendment that I would wish that both would be supported. Thank you, Peter. I now call Pauline McNeill to speak to amendments 7B and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 7B seeks to ensure, similar to Macrombos, that an assessment on the parking levee and parking in the surrounding area is taken into account. That was the experience of nottingham, that there was a considerable amount of displaced traffic as a result of parking levee. If such an assessment is not undertaking, then it can have a quite a serious impact on local people. I wonder why the member feels that needs to be specifically in. If he takes a city like Glasgow when they introduce parking metres, they would be looking at knock-on effect in the surrounding area, the same with the parking around the stadia. Does she not think that we can trust Glasgow to look at the knock-on effect? Here we go. A lot of communities do not want extra traffic orders on their communities, so it is a choice for them. It is not just a simple question of a local authority like Glasgow, saying that, in order to stop displaced traffic, we will impose some restrictions on local communities. It is a probing amendment that I am sure the member will appreciate at this stage. It is one of the issues that nottingham did come up, so it is quite a legitimate one to probe, I would suggest for the committee. Amendment 7C seeks to ensure that an assessment of the parking levee on poverty in the surrounding area is considered and taken into account. In-work poverty remains a serious problem. 182,000 children in Scotland live in poverty despite having one person in their household in work. As the committee has listened to in the evidence session, many people rely on their cars to get to work. Many poor people rely on their cars to get to work because public transport, even in Glasgow, is expensive. A quarter of people living on the periphery of the city already have to catch at least two buses to work. If you have a car at your disposal, it is an easy choice to make. Tens of thousands of people will not be able to afford any more in their cost of living if the levee is passed on. It will result in people—I do not believe that it will result in people getting out of their cars because public transport, even in Glasgow, is not good enough. The connectivity report recently produced acknowledges the fact that we need significant investment, even in Scotland's largest city. If passed, I think that it is perfectly acceptable for legislators like us to provide the broad framework, even if it is passed the law, and that should include principles that we believe local authorities should adopt, such as a poverty impact assessment. As a legislator, I came here to fight on some issues. One of them is poverty. I do not see why we cannot have a principle of that in any framework passed for local authorities to decide on further detail. We have to consider the impact on shift workers and part-time workers. How will the scheme take that into account? I have consulted in numerous workplaces who are concerned about that. On the issue that John Mason raises about regional transport authorities, I think that they are not accountable enough to have such a power, and I would consider that that is not where we should end up on this one. It will be decades in Glasgow before we see the requisite investment with not a coming, having 9 million a year raised on that. It is not enough. You can see that it is going to be a decade before public transport would be good enough, even in Scotland's largest city before people would make the choice not to drive. On the question of the referendum, I would ask John Finnie to say why he has so little faith in local authorities and why he has so little faith in the people to make a decision in their own localities as to whether they want a parking levy or not. I support Jamie Greene's amendment. I would like to just acknowledge it that the welfare and people's standards of living is a matter for this Parliament. If we pass this into law, it is our job to consider the welfare of people in passing legislation. We have heard not very much about how that would be enforced. Perhaps we will hear that further down the line, but I want to hear about how that will impact on people's lives who already face poverty. Thank you very much. I would normally call Dean Lockhart to speak to amendment 80, but he is involved in other business in the Parliament, and Jamie Greene is going to speak to that amendment. Thank you, convener. I will only speak to Dean Lockhart's amendments. I think that is a protocol, and I will come back and speak to other amendments in this group, including my own, when it is my turn to do so. Dean sends his apologies. There was perhaps a lack of understanding as to when we may be addressing this issue. MSPs appreciate having other committee and MSP duties to attend to. He has asked me to reflect upon those amendments with the committee. Amendment E is similar, in some senses, to Mike Rumbles' amendment A. I think that Mr Rumbles had the right intention of leaving out business customers from the levy. It just strikes me as strange that we would want people who are customers of businesses to be part of the levy of the business that they are visiting. It does not really stipulate what the purpose of those visits may be or the length of time they may spend. We would like to take that further to include the suppliers of businesses. For example, many small businesses get parts delivered. I have a few in my constituency. I am sure that Mr Lockhart does, too, where other small and medium-sized businesses turn up to deliver goods or do contractor work for a short period of time to assist that business in its efforts. It would seem unfair for those to be penalised in the same light. I believe that that is the premise behind 8A. The member took her intervention? Yes, happily. You surely are not leading that as an amendment. People turn up for maybe half an hour or even come to prepare an air-conditioning unit and they are going to be expected to pay a car parking life. You surely are not suggesting that. No, I hope not. You are absolutely right. It would seem very unfair to do in place such a charge. I am sure that it would be fair to say that. With respect, we read the amendments to the bill that Mr Finnie submitted and a number of us felt that it was not secure enough in ensuring that business customers would be exempt from the charge. If the minister or Mr Finnie summing up can point us to the specific wording of his amendment that gives us that conference security, then we can take a view to where they move those amendments. In the absence of that, we read the amendments and we took a view that it does not cover that. Indeed, I do not want to end up in the scenario where in your constituency customers turn up to small businesses and are part of the scheme of that business. We want to put it on the faces of the bill that they are absolutely excluded. Why would they not? I hope that other members would agree with me on that. It is not nonsense, Mr Stevenson. If you are welcome to intervene, if you have comments to make. In fairness, Jamie, I would ask you to push on and ignore any comments. To all committee members, this is obviously an interesting subject that has caught the public eye. Making comments under one's breath about other people's views on it is not helpful. I would ask people to refrain from doing that and try to look at the legislation. I would ask you, Jamie, to continue on amendment 80, which you have agreed to speak to. I have nothing for, let's say, on amendment 80e. On amendment 80f, in the name of Dean Lockhart, the sixth and narrowed down the definition of what constitutes a relevant person in the legislation and stipulates that it only applies to the person that provides the parking place in question. This amendment is the route to achieve that. Amendment 8g removes education and government institutions from the definition of businesses. In relation to amendment 80e, it deletes the section defining business customers and clients or customers of the relevant person. I know that we talk in greater detail in the exemption section, so I will leave comments around removals of places to that debate. Amendment 8h is the amendment in Mr Lockhart's name that seeks to ensure that only employees working full-time and permanent contracts are subject to the conditions of the levy. That would ensure that part-time members or short-term contractual staff such as those who are doing day-temping jobs, which is quite common practice in many businesses, would not be subject to the levy. It would, indeed, only relate to permanent full-time members or staff, it seems. Have you made a good way in that point? Yes. How would it affect a job share? A job share in what respect, Mr Mings? Was it that two people did 18 and a half hours each instead of one person doing 37? Indeed. I would argue that you are earning a salary of 18 and a half hours a week. It would seem unfair to be forced to pay the same levy of someone earning 36 hours a week, so I think that the exemption should apply, therefore. I have nothing further to add on those amendments. Thank you very much, Jamie. Now I call on John Mason to speak to amendment 9A and the other amendments in the group. John. Thank you very much, convener. First of all, can I say how much I support the workplace parking levy and the amendments 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 in the name of John Finnie? I think it is worth stressing that those amendments do only empower local authorities. It is about decentralising, giving power to local authorities and they may or may not take them up. Some have already said that they will take them up and some have not. The committee was very impressed by Nottingham's example of what they have done and the success of that. We understand that a number of other English authorities are looking at following that model. Frankly, convener, we have to discourage people unnecessarily taking their cars to work, and that is especially the case in city centres such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, and certainly the case for MSPs in this Parliament. Glasgow has very low car ownership, so on the whole, it is not affecting poorer people, it is affecting richer people, this is a tax on the elite, and I would say that this is broadly a progressive measure, and it is something to be very much supported. I especially like the park and ride system that they have in Nottingham, and I think that we do need to do more of that in and around Glasgow. I just wondered if the member thinks that this is an issue for the elite who have cars and poor people do not have cars. Just in case you might be wrong about that, would you therefore support exemptions for those who earn under, say, their living wage, for example? The whole point of this is that this is a levy on the employer. The employer does not need to pass this on at all. For example, in this place, the cleaners and the technical staff do not have parking places in the Scottish Parliament. It is the MSPs that have parking places. You are contradicting yourself because you said that it is not necessarily going to get passed on to the workers, so who are the elite then? If the levy is only to be on the employer, then you are suggesting that it is never going to be passed on, but on the other hand you say, while cleaners do not want to pay it. At present, the people who are generally in the city centres who are getting parking places are the directors, the bosses and those kinds of people. Out of town is different, but in the city centres on the whole it is not the ordinary workers who are getting free parking places. Did Mr Greene want to come in as well? The idea of people watching this thinking that it is only the elite, it is only the directors and rich businessmen who get parking spaces at their place of work must be watching in absolute horror what is being said by this committee. It is absolutely not true that it is only the elite to park at their place of work. Every day, normal workers park at their place of work. Is the member seriously arguing that ordinary workers get free parking places commonly in the city centres? As a member of this Parliament who often works later into the evening, I do not believe that it is just MSPs who get car parking spaces. In fact, often when I turn up on a Sunday evening or a Monday evening or an evening during the week it is security staff and people working in the Parliament who are coming in to help and get the Parliament ready for the next day. They are using those parking spaces, perhaps not during the day but at night, as much as any MSP, and I wondered if he would accept that point. I would accept that they get parking spaces if the MSPs do not require them. The norm is that the parking spaces are for the MSPs and for company directors for these kinds of people. I suggest that, if people are travelling within Glasgow and Edinburgh, there is an extremely good public transport system and people should not normally need to take their cars for a nine-to-five job and just leave the car sitting all day. However, I am not ruling out the fact that, of course, there are people from outside the city, including the convener, who come from a distance and the public transport system does not work. Of course, some people need to use their cars, but the overall point of this levy is to reduce a level of traffic in the city centres that are not sustainable and cannot keep growing and we need to tackle it. If I can move on to my amendment, which is 9A, that was really just to flag up the question as to how the cabinet secretary and the member are moving those amendments. I think that RTPs might be involved, because they are major players in the transport field. I take John Finnie's point that there could be confusion, there could be duplication, so I am not going to push this, and there would have been a lot of successive consequential amendments if I had been pushing it. However, I think that it would answer the question of how we can be more joined up. One extremely good example of park and ride is at Croy between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and that is in North Lanarkshire, but it is Glasgow and Edinburgh that we will be raising the levy. We need to see those councils working together. I accept that the proposal is that they can work together, but I wonder if what the thoughts of the member moving and the cabinet secretary were, which he might comment later on, as to how that might be strengthened and RTPs might be brought into the equation. John Finnie, I now call on Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 9B and the other amendments in the group. Amendment 9B and my name requires park and levy schemes to be signed off by ministers. That is the case with LEZs and other similar schemes, and we provide an additional element of oversight. I note that amendment 9B is supported even by those who support a workplace park and levy such as Friends of the Earth. John Finnie says that this goes against his view that all decisions should be made by local councils, yet the reality is that his amendment provides national exemptions, so it seems that localism is only selected localism. Amendments 10A and 10B in my name would require a ballot to be held to agree the introduction of a scheme. That will democratise the process and ensure it has public support. A similar ballot was held in the possibility of a congestion charge in Edinburgh, so there is precedent. Much has been said about consultation, but if consultation is so important, then why not have the ultimate consultation and let people decide in a ballot to use John Finnie's phrase that he used earlier? Why does those who oppose this have such little faith in the public? Thank you, Colin. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to speak to amendment 9B and other amendments in the group? I will now speak to my own amendments in this group. It is quite a large group, so I will keep my comments to my amendments, but I should add that I will be supporting the amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles, Pauline McNeill and Colin Smith for the majority. On my own amendments, amendment 9B seeks to insert a number of conditions that the local authority must take before setting up a scheme. If you look at what is in C, D, E and F, which I have added to amendment 9, I think that it is right that the local authority should demonstrate the need for a scheme, that it should be able to demonstrate that the displacement of vehicles as a result of the scheme does not increase pollution in the areas to which the vehicles are displaced, that any such workplace parking label will not have a detrimental impact on employment levels in the local authority area, or indeed the economic impact of a negative effect, and that a workplace parking label cannot be introduced in an area where there is also a low emissions on. The reason for that simply is that when we took evidence of what is the point of a label, if the point is to deter people from driving into cities, there are other means to do so. Other cities have successfully introduced congestion charges to try and encourage behaviour of not driving into cities where it is not possible, but if you have to, there is a fee associated with that, such as the case in London. There are also low emission zones, which will tackle the sorts of vehicles that we do not want in our cities. Broadly speaking, there is cross-party support for those measures, but we have always been clear since that was introduced that the Scottish Conservatives are in principle opposed to the workforce parking levy. We see it as a regressive tax on motorists, on workers, and far from what Mr Mason said, it is not just rich directors and business owners who park at their place of work. If we pass this legislation in the amendments that Mr Finnie suggests, then this could theoretically, if established in their local authority area, impact on any worker in Scotland, other than those that we exempt as we go through this process. On my other amendments, amendment D stipulates that local authorities should publish an impact assessment. I appreciate Mr Finnie's intentions on preparing and publishing the scheme and the objectives of the scheme and the assessment of the impacts of the proposal already in 10. Those are very welcome comments. However, I have taken it further and I would like to see on the face of the bill that the local authorities must set out a report detailing the impact that the levy will have on low-income households, on small and medium-sized businesses and the vicinity of the workplace levy scheme and, indeed, persons with disability or impairment. There are three groups that I think we as a Parliament should be talking about when we look at introducing taxes and charges and levies. It is important that that is on the face of the bill that local authorities cannot look past those groups. As it is currently worded, amendment 10 by Mr Finnie does not dictate or state what groups have to be consulted and the assessment that the levy will have on those groups. I think that those are three groups of people that we as a Parliament should be focusing on. On amendment 10, F, the bill additionally adds an assessment on local businesses and island communities. I think that that is important. The committee has spent a lot of time looking at our island communities. I think that it seems right and proper that we look at the assessment of any levy in which a local authority area has island communities would have on those. In my own region, for example, if North Ayrshire Council decided as a result of the neighbouring legislation to introduce a levy, I would like them to perform robust impact assessments on the effect that that would have on the islands of Ireland and Cumbria, where, for example, public transport is limited at certain times of the day only, and many people simply have to drive to their place of work. If you look at the example of some of the distilleries or production facilities on our own, driving to work is simply the only way to get there. I would like to ensure that we do not, as a Parliament, pass legislation that negatively impacts our island communities, notwithstanding the islands bill and the additional duties that authorities have as a result of that. I hope that that is something that members will consider and support. Amendment 11A is a technical amendment in respect of how a scheme may be revoked. Amendment 12B was introduced because I think that if this Parliament does its job and we see that a levy has been introduced and is having a severe negative impact on any particular area of Scotland, then we as a Parliament should be able to ask that local authority to review and indeed have the ability to revoke a scheme where it is having such a negative effect on the Scottish economy. I think that that is a helpful power for this Parliament to have that currently does not exist. Amendment 12A is a technical one to help facilitate that. Amendment 14A would remove requirement for licences in the scheme to specify the maximum number of vehicles that can be parked at any workplace. I do not see any tangible benefit in having a maximum, as is currently drafted in amendment 14 by Mr Finnie, so I would like to remove that cap. On the issue of petitions, I appreciate that there may be some disagreement on whether 20 per cent is a suitable trigger. I am happy for members to amend that at the next stage. However, if it is the view of local residents and local businesses that this levy is having a negative impact on their business, on their communities and on their local authority area, and such is the strength of support that the local authority is simply not listening to review or revocation of such a scheme, I would like to give some power to the people in that respect. If the strength of feeling is such, and I am happy for that threshold to be raised if members feel that 20 per cent is too low, then it is only right that the local authority is forced to review the scheme if local people are telling them, quite simply, stop causing us harm at small businesses. I think that that would be a useful welcome power to give the people in the local authorities. I am happy to leave my comments at that, because I know that other members have spoken at length to their own amendments. Thank you, Jamie. I have two members who wish to speak unless anyone else does at the moment. I am going to call Richard Lyle to start with me. Over the past number of months, I have previously made comments about the workplace park in Levy. Since those comments, I have listened to the evidence that has been put about by various organisations and, in particular, COSLA. I have also listened to the point about the climate emergency and people who are demonstrating outside this Parliament today. I was previously a SNP group leader in COSLA in 2007-9 and previously a councillor for over three decades. I believe in localism and I believe in councils being able to take the decisions on behalf of the family and the democratic process, but I have also learned as a politician, and I am coming up for my 43rd year in politics, where people have made—as I used to do, I used to scare monger, the same as other parties are now doing in this Parliament in regards to this policy. Some of the amendments that have been put in and some of the comments that have been made are totally not correct. Therefore, today, I will be changing my view and I will be supporting Mr Finnie in his, because I believe that councils should have the ability to raise, if they believe. Some councils will use it, some councils won't use it, and I know that, at the end of the day, I will have people who will come back at me, because of the comments that I previously made, so be it. I have been a politician long enough, but at the end of the day, I have made up my mind that I will be supporting Mr Finnie's amendment. Thank you, Mr Finnie. Thank you. Does any other member of the committee wish to say something? I would then like to say something before I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up. It is difficult to position as convener sitting at this table to allow your views to be represented and to represent the views of the committee, and there comes a time when, as convener, you have to take your convener's hat off and say what you believe. I am now taking my hat off as convener and speaking as a member of the committee. First of all, I have listened carefully to the evidence that has been given during the evidence session, and I am thankful as a committee that we were able to take that evidence. It became clear during the evidence session to me that there were three ways of tackling the emissions within towns and villages and cities. Those were suggested as congestion charging, low emission zones and a workplace parking levees. It was also suggested and made very clear during those evidence sessions to me that you could only choose one. You couldn't choose a multiple of them because they were therefore conflicting on each other. Also, listen carefully to the evidence that was given at the committee about from Nottingham. It appears to me that Nottingham is completely different to the majority areas of Scotland when it comes to public transport, in the fact that they have excellent public transport areas and provision in Nottingham, which allows people not to take cars into city centres. I believe that, in Scotland, we are in a different area, areas with large rural hinterlands where people do have to travel into cities and have little chance to take public transport. Indeed, sometimes I know from areas that I have worked in that if you get on a bus to go somewhere that you have to catch that very same bus to get back to where you have come from without interruption to be able to make the right connections. I have a little doubt in my mind that looking around and the way that this will be passed on from the evidence that we have heard that employers will pass on taxation to employees or certainly are some to share it. Therefore, I believe that this becomes a tax on going to work and therefore I don't believe that it's progressive. I think that we've discussed and I've made my intervention during Mr Mason's speech about how people use car parts at odd times of the day when normal workers are not using them so that they can service buildings and make sure that they're working for the next day. I don't think that it's right for those people that work in hours outside normal working hours to have to pay for a tax. I also have listened to what Mr Lyle has said about being a politician. I have not been a politician for 43 years and I will not be a politician for 43 years. In fact, I have got into politics so that I could make and stand on difficult decisions. Therefore, I make it abundantly clear at the outset of this that I do not support the working place parking levy. I don't support any part of it and I don't believe that it will achieve anything from the climate's point of view. Therefore, I will vote for amendments where I see that it will benefit should this legislation be passed but I will not vote for the legislation because I don't think that it's in the interest of people who go to work in Scotland. Having made that statement, I now put my convener's hat back on. I thank the committee members for allowing me to do that and for not interrupting me when I do it. I now call on the cabinet secretary to make comment. John Finnie has set out the case for local authorities to have the powers to introduce workplace parking levies. As we consider the amendments, you can see that this is a carefully crafted proposal, which is very much about empowering local authorities and giving tools to address issues such as the climate emergency. No single action can do that, but we need all the available powers at our disposal to meet those pressing challenges. In the recent debate on stage 1 of the climate change Scotland bill, all parties were clear on the need for action. With opposition spokespersons stating that we face a national environment and climate emergency, we need to take further action and that we should not postpone taking hard decisions. Yet a modest and completely discretionary power for local authorities to act has attracted furious criticism from those very same parties. Turning to other amendments in the group, they appear to me to range from being well-meaning to those that I can only assume are designed to frustrate the proposal. I firmly agree with John Finnie's approach to localism in decision making and I am disappointed at what appears to be a lack of confidence that some members have in local authorities in using these discretionary powers. It is worth restating some of the key principles of John Finnie's amendments. This is a power for local authorities, not a duty. It is underpinned by duties to consult and to carry out impact assessments on persons affected and the environment. It is strategic as it is linked to achievement of activities that is set out in a local transport strategy and funds raised must be spent on the scheme and transport-related activities. On a very point raised by John Mason and the role of RTPs, of course no local transport strategy can be shaped in isolation and the drafting and development of any local transport strategy to support such a proposal by a local authority will require due consultation with RTPs. That is a provision that will be set out in guidance to accompany the legislation. Convener, for those reasons, I support John Finnie's amendments and I cannot support the other amendments in the group. Thank you cabinet secretary and I call on John Finnie to wind up on amendment 7. There has been much discussion and I will just leave the comments as they are. Mike Rumbles, can I ask you to wind up on amendment 7a and ask you to press a withdrawal please? I think that we are making bad law and I think that the deal between the S&P and the Greens budget deal has shackled the committee in our work. It is quite obvious that the S&P members and Green members are not accepting any of the constructive amendments at all. Designed to improve the bill and we cannot do our job. I want to see. I want to see. Would Mr Rumbles share my frustration and the sadness of the way that we are legislating, because we did nothing on this at stage one. This should have been introduced by the Government at stage one so that we, as a committee, would have a proper chance to scrutinise it, to consult with the public, with the businesses and with the people that are going to be affected by the law that this committee is passing. I am deeply saddened by the process that we have gone through to squeeze it in at stage two. I agree with that. I am deeply saddened. When I joined this Parliament 20 years ago, I thought that the great thing about it was its committee work. However, the S&P members are being whipped to support the Green amendment. They are not accepting any amendments. It is quite obvious that they are. It is not playing games. It is too important to play games. We have put down constructive amendments to try and improve the amendment. I plead with the transport secretary because we have tried to be constructive throughout this whole process. This is not being constructive. We are trying to make good law. We might not like the amendment, but we could certainly improve it. Therefore, I want to be able to put those amendments again. I hope that we will have some time to think about those at stage 3. I am not going to move 7A because I want the Presiding Officer to accept my amendments for debate at stage 3, where, hopefully, we can get some constructive changes to the amendment. Thank you, Mr Rumbles. As Mr Rumbles wishes to withdraw amendments 7A, I will have to ask if any member wishes to eject. No member wishes to eject, therefore the amendment 7A is withdrawn. I therefore call amendment 7D in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 7. Peter Chapman, to move or not move? I will move, but just before I do that, I would just like that. You can move it or not move it. There isn't a chance to debate it. We've had the chance to debate, so it is just purely an opportunity to move or not move. I ask you whether you want to move it or not move. I will move it. Therefore, the question is that amendment 7B agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. 17. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes. Four, there are six votes against. Therefore, amendment 7D is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 7B in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 7. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. The other question, therefore, is amendment 7B 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. Four, there are six votes against. Therefore, amendment 7B is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 7C in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 7. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. Thank you. The question, therefore, is that amendment 7B, C, 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. Those abstentions, please raise their hands. There are four votes. Four, there are six votes against, and there's one abstention. Therefore, amendment 7C is not agreed. Therefore, I call on John Finnie to press all with draw amendment 7B. The question, therefore, is amendment 7B 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 six votes. Four, there are five votes against. Therefore, amendment 7 is agreed. I therefore call amendment 8 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 7. John Finnie, to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 8E in the name of Dean Lockhart, already debated with amendment 7. Jamie Greene to move or not move on his behalf. I therefore call amendment 8A in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 7. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 8F in the name of Dean Lockhart, already debated with amendment 7. Jamie Greene to move or not move I therefore call amendment 8B in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 7. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 8G in the name of Dean Lockhart, already debated with amendment 7. Jamie Greene to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 8C in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment 7. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. I therefore call amendment Regardless of the weight and��ude, it is very important that we deal with the difference of the issues that are on the table, came out of Iran, and was why, unlike themselves, government We are not agreed that there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are six votes, four and five votes against, therefore amendment eight is agreed. I therefore call amendment nine in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment seven. John Finnie to move? Move, community. Will not move. It's moved. Call amendment nine A in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment seven. John Mason to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment nine C in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment seven. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. I thought this was the most constructive amendment, but I'm not moving it, hopefully, until stage three. I therefore call amendment nine B in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment seven. Colin Smyth to move or not move? I'll move it, convener. The question is that amendment nine B be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed that there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Okay, there are four votes. Four, seven votes against, therefore, amendment nine B is not agreed. I therefore call amendment nine D in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment seven. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. Okay. The question, therefore, is John Finnie to press or withdraw amendment nine, please. The question is amendment nine B agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed that there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are six votes. Four, there are five votes against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. Sorry. Well, I'm afraid it's a democracy, Mr Rumble, so we go with a democracy. Therefore, I call amendment ten in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment seven. John Finnie to move or not move, please. Move, convener. I therefore call amendment ten D in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment seven. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment ten A in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment seven. Can we move or not move? Move, convener. Okay. The question is, amendment ten A be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed that there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are four votes. Four, there are seven votes against. Therefore, amendment ten A is not agreed. I therefore call amendment ten B in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment seven. Colin Smyth to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I therefore call amendment ten E in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment seven. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment ten C in the name of Mike Rumbles, already debated with amendment seven. Mike Rumbles to move or not move? Not moved. I therefore call amendment 10F in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 7, Jamie Greene to move or not move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 10G in the name of Peter Chapman, already debated with amendment 7, Peter Chapman to move or not move. Not moved. John Finnie, therefore, I ask you whether you wish to press or withdraw amendment 10, please. Press, convener. The question is that amendment 10 has amendmentably 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 six votes, four, there are five votes against, therefore, amendment 10 is agreed. I therefore call amendment 11 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 11, John Finnie to move or not move. It moved, convener. I call amendment 11A in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 11, Jamie Greene to move or not move. Not moved. I therefore ask John Finnie whether you wish to press or withdraw amendment 11, please. Press, convener. The question is that amendment 11 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 six votes, four, there are five votes against, therefore, amendment 11 is agreed. I call amendment 12 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 7, John Finnie to move or not move. I call amendment 12A in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 7, Jamie Greene to move or not move. Can we not have to not move 12A and 12B? Thank you. I therefore ask John Finnie to press or withdraw amendment 12, please. Press, convener. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are six votes, four, there are five votes against, therefore, amendment 12 is agreed. I call amendment 13 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 7. John Finnie to move or not move. Move, convener. I therefore call amendment 13A in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 7. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Not move. I therefore ask John Finnie whether you wish to press or withdraw amendment 13. Press, convener. The question, therefore, that amendment 13 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are six votes, four, there are five votes against, therefore, amendment 13 is agreed. I therefore call amendment 14 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 7. John Finnie to move or not move. Move, convener. I call amendment 14A in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 7. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Not move. The question, therefore, John Finnie, is do you wish to press or withdraw amendment 14. Press, convener. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Sorry. There are six votes, four, there are five votes against, therefore, amendment 14 is agreed. We are now going to move on to working place parking exemptions, and I can shortly take a break, but I'm going to call amendment 15 in the name of John Finnie group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out if amendment 15A is agreed, I cannot call amendment 15B due to a preemption. Furthermore, if amendment 16M is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 16AH again due to a preemption. John Finnie, can I ask you please to amendment 15 and speak to all the amendments in the group? Mr Finnie. Thank you very much indeed, convener. Much of the discussion around workplace parking labels has been around exemptions. What will be exempt, why would groups be exempt, and who will apply the exemptions? Excuse me. Amendment 15 sets out the basis for exemption under the scheme. It covers four key areas. It requires that any workplace parking licensing scheme must include any national exemptions set by Scottish ministers, as well as the national exemptions provided for in the bill. The proposed national exemptions in the bill are set out in amendment 16. Amendment 15 also gives local authorities powers to set further exemptions. That is a wide-ranging power, as those exemptions can apply to specific premises, specific number of parking places, persons or motor vehicles. That is really important as it allows local authorities to draw up a scheme in the light of local circumstances. They have a wide scope as to what exemptions they can apply and how they apply them. That approach builds on the flexibility in the scheme, in how a scheme may be applied in amendment 7. I firmly believe that the local level is the place to determine further exemption. It is not the national stage. It is self-evident that important decisions make at local level will be better when meeting the needs of an area. Those decisions will be based on an understanding of local issues and preferred outcomes. My amendments ensure that a scheme can be tailored to meet local needs and circumstances. That is far removed from the rigid one-size-fits-all picture that opponents of the workplace parking levies have painted. Amendment 15 also ensures that only one scheme can cover the same premises at any given time. It gives Scottish ministers the power through regulations to provide for other exemptions or to restrict exemptions. My amendment 27 requires that those regulations be by affirmative procedure. That means that any proposals for national exemption in the future will face full and transparent scrutiny. I firmly believe that the framework for exemptions delivers the clarity that is sought while giving the flexibility to implement local schemes to make local needs. Amendments 15A and 15B are on exemptions for small car parks. Amendment 15A from Colin Smyth seeks to make a business with 15 parking places of fewer or any higher number that the local authority did to examine exempt from charges under any workplace parking levy scheme. Amendment 15B from Jamie Greene seeks to set this at 20 parking places. That covers the same ground as Mike Rumble's amendment 7A that we considered earlier. Colin Smyth wants a minimum threshold to be 15 parking places. Jamie Greene wants 20 and Mike wanted 10. Mike Rumble's variation makes my point that it is best left to the local authority to decide. Why would we apply random thresholds at a national level to a local scheme? Let's leave it to the people who have to design, plan and implement the impact of a scheme and consult in that scheme to decide. Ultimately, they will have to justify their decisions to the electorate. The framework that my amendments provide deliver this clarity and flexibility. I cannot support amendment 15A or 15B. Amendment 16 sets out the national exemptions that should be applied to workplace parking licensing scheme. Those are parking places for blue badge holders and equivalent disabled parking badges, qualifying NHS premises and places at hospices. I would like to address each of those in turn. I am sure that the committee will welcome the exemption for blue badge spaces, as well as protect the rights of disabled people. It also provides an incentive for those with premises liable for the levy to consider making more of such parking places available. Committee members will be well aware that the exclusion of hospitals and NHS premises from the workplace parking levy was part of the budget agreement. The amendment delivers that, but the inclusion of the NHS in my amendment is about more than the budget agreement. It is difficult to imagine a most strategically important and distinctive function than that which is provided by the NHS on a national level. That is something that resonates with the public. I am aware that there are other sectors that also have national significance. It is important to be clear that not having a national exemption does not mean that a workplace parking licence scheme will apply in a local situation. There are a number of steps that will shape that. My apologies if that seems to be self-evident, but much of the criticism of my amendments and the many of the amendments lodged to amendment 16 seem to miss this point. Step 1 is that a local authority will have to decide if they wish to set up a scheme. It is really up to them if they wish to. Step 2 is that the local authority will set out the scope of the scheme. As part of that, they will determine local exemptions. That will then be subject to detailed assessment of the impact on people affected and the environment. Step 3 will be consultation. Finally, if a scheme is implemented, it will be levied on premises, not people. If a scheme is implemented, it will be levied on premises, not people. It will be a matter for the occupiers of those premises whether they pass on the levy if it is applied at all. Underpinning my approach to workplace parking levies is the principle of localism. The national strategic importance of the NHS warrants a national exemption, but otherwise I believe that the decisions on how a workplace parking scheme will operate, including additional exemptions, are best made at local level. The decisions that will be part of a wider strategic vision of the needs of an area underpin by a detailed impact assessment, indeed assessments. My view is clearly that national exemptions should very much be the exception to the role. I accept that there are a lot of interesting exceptions, but the vast bulk of the amendments in this group appear to be a shopping list of additional national exemptions. Some of those are for sectoral groups while others name individual companies. I have no doubt that those amendments are sincerely proposed, but taken as a whole, it appears that they are trying to weaken the provisions so that a workplace parking levy never gets off the ground. That goes against the principles of localism underpin by a strategic approach that my amendment delivers. I would like to say a little more, convener, about the definition of NHS. For the purpose of the amendment, the NHS is widely defined widely. It will include GPs, for example. This represents the continuum of care that the public expects the NHS to deliver. My amendment also includes a national exemption for hospices. Some hospices are on NHS premises, while some are not. To add or distinction between different hospices on where they are located seems to be inappropriate, and I have therefore attempted to make clear that all hospices should be exempt regardless of location. I would like to draw the committee's attention to subsection 2, subsection B of my amendment. That allows for NHS premises that do not deliver NHS services to be liable for the levy. That would cover circumstances where NHS premises were, for example, led to a company that does not directly provide NHS services. I believe that that is right and that the public will view that as right. All the amendments attempt to add to the national exemption range from sectoral groups to different sort of premises in private companies. They go against the principles of localism that underpin the scheme, and I have asked why is there so little trust in local authorities to make decisions at local level. I believe that the framework that I have set out provides the clarity and flexibility that is required to deliver on the ground. We know why I want that. In summary, I would ask the committee to support amendments 15, 16 and 27 in my name. I would ask other members not to move their amendments in this group, but I would ask the committee to vote against them if they are. I move amendment 15. Thank you very much, John. There are eight members who will be given the opportunity to speak to their amendments, and then there will be an opportunity for the committee to speak. I am going to call the cabinet secretary and, just for the committee's thing, I am then going to be unconventional and call a suspension at that stage before we go into a lengthy period of voting to allow people a five-minute break. I am going to push on now with Colin Smyth to move amendment 15A and speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. My amendment adds in a number of additional exemptions to the proposed workplace pack. I have to say, John Finnie once again contradicts himself in the one hand saying that local government should decide what the exemption should be, but at the same time moving a number of national exemptions. It seems that local democracy is when the Greens and SNP decide that local democracy should exist. Amendment 15A in my name calls for car parts with 15 spaces or less to be exempt. Amendment 15B by Jamie Greene makes a similar suggestion, but set in a minimum at 20 spaces. I think that either would be a welcome addition and I am happy to support either of those amendments. It sets a very clear figure for businesses that cover several areas in Scotland to know exactly what their roles are that they will have to play by. Amendment 16A in my name would exempt police premises. We have heard that NHS premises rightly should be exempt because that is a national service. Well, it seems to me that maybe the Greens have failed to notice that the police service is now a national service. Police officers and staff have a unique safety need to use private vehicles to get to work and back, and so it should be exempt from any scheme. Likewise, amendment 16A in my name exempts educational premises and amendment 16A I exempts social worker. The committee received evidence that both of those groups are, for a range of reasons, require the use of a car to get to and from their place of work. Amendment 16A GI looks to exempt shift workers and those working irregular hours who are less likely to contribute to congestion but more likely to struggle to find public transport outwith the normal daytime working day. I have to say it for the SNP to describe social workers, the police, teachers, shift workers as somehow the elite is frankly an utter disgrace. There is a significant number of proposed exemptions in this section, some of which overlap with mine. I think that all those proposed exemptions make a valid contribution. I am happy to support them all, but I think that the sheer volume of legitimate exemptions suggests just how utterly flawed this whole process is. The workplace parking levy is a measure that should have been if those who supported it wanted it to be a bill in itself. But so far what we have seen is a proposal that has been slipped through at the last minute as part of a murky budget deal as an amendment. That means that there is no proper scrutiny by this Parliament on the proposals themselves. That is why I utterly oppose this particular scheme and believe that exemptions should be put in place where we have clearly heard evidence in support of those exemptions. I will now call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 15b. I am not going to add too much to what Colin Smith said because it is not often the Labour Party and the Conservatives agree on exemptions of tax or indeed issues of tax. Burn this. That is rather uncalled for, Mr Law. You are welcome to intervene on me if you have got a comment to make. Thank you for that apology. This is important. I think that Mr Rumble summed it up nicely. We are creating the law here. This committee has a duty. I am deeply saddened by the events of today because I do not think that we are making good law. I think that the sheer volume of exemptions here and let us look at the list of exemptions. I appreciate that Mr Finnie made the comment that they were introduced with the well-intended. I am pleased that that has been recognised because that is the case. There may be other amendments that one could argue that we are seeking to disrupt the mechanisms of the levy. People are welcome to their views on that, but those are national exemptions. Where I disagree fundamentally with the approach that Mr Finnie's amendments on this workplace parking levy take is that it will be up to local authorities to decide local exemptions. Therefore, each city who introduces or needs any local authority who introduces a levy should they do so as a result of the legislation can decide who pays and who doesn't. Theoretically, that could end up in a situation where a teacher in Glasgow is liable for the charge but not in Edinburgh or a nurse in Aberdeen is liable but not in Dundee. Where is the fairness in that? That is not about local democracy to me. That is about creating bad law. The whole list that the Scottish Conservatives and indeed others, Mr Rumbles and Mr Smith have a number of other exemptions should be on the face of the bill. Those are the sort of hard-working people and public service workers in Scotland that this Parliament and this committee protect, firefighters, policemen, train drivers, care workers, prison officers, people at park and do charity work in our high streets. Why on earth are we subjecting them to this tax? I think that we should be ashamed of ourselves therefore I support all the exemptions in this group. Thank you, Jamie. I now call on Miles Briggs to speak to amendment 6N and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. Having spoken to a number of people who work in our health and social care sector, I have brought forward a number of amendments and I welcome the fact that John Finnie has specifically also brought forward the amendment with regards to hospices. I was also looking to bring forward one that was not originally included. The amendments that I have lodged to the bill intend to exempt people working in the health and social care from the scheme. Amendment 16.0 would exempt employees working for independent healthcare services while 16P and 16Q cover employees of veterinary practices and people working in Scotland's air ambulance service respectively. I have also sought to exempt adult social care providers through amendments 16R and 16S while 16T and 16U would exempt places of residential care establishments and health-based charities across Scotland. Finally, my amendment 16M deletes subsection 2B from section 16 which stipulates that you must be a healthcare provider to qualify for exemption at the hospital. I think that that is a key point if this bill goes forward, that hospitals like our Parliament require technicians, cleaners and security personnel to name just a few. All provide a vital and key role within the hospital and NHS setting and so it's only right that they are also exempt. Thank you very much, Miles. I now call on Jeremy Greene. Are you going to speak to amendment 16A because Grimms Simpson is, I believe, in a community? Yes, I'm happy to. Members will bear with me. 16A and B in the name of Grimms Simpson who passed his apologies this morning has asked me to move these. They specifically want to exempt industrial sites, heritage and construction sites in the scheme. That's on the basis of a number of pieces of consultation that he and our party have been having with sites. We approached a number of local authority areas and businesses within them, talked to them about the prospect of this levy. We talked to them about the effect it may have on them and their workforce. I appreciate that a comment was made that this is on the premise not the people, but it is inevitable, as was the case with the only other local authority in the entire country that's actually implemented a scheme like this, that some businesses will pass it on to their employees. I believe that they will do so, not out of spite of their employees, but out of a necessity because they simply cannot afford the levy that will be imposed on them. I've spoken to a number of businesses with regards to industrial sites specifically. Let me give you some examples. It's important in the midst of all the politics and the emotion in this that we actually listen to real local businesses. Let me take break Scotland in Newhouse. As a major employer, based in an out-of-town location with a 24-hour operation, we believe that the proposal for the levy would have a negative impact on our employees and people who work under such similar circumstances. The lack of public transport outside major conurbations and the ability to provide suitable, safe and regular alternatives to fit with shift patterns leave people no option but to drive to work, and imposing a tax on them would, in our view, be unfair and punitive. I hope that Mr Llyw will reflect on that. Maybe he can comment on it. Happy to take an invention. That's in my constituency. It's very nice to know that you've contacted a business in my constituency. You also know that North Lancer Council has never, never implemented a car parking charge in the number of years. I'm pleased, but you've just voted to give them the power to do so. Mr Llyw, why aren't you listening? Sorry, in fairness. I'm very happy for interventions to be taking, but can we not degenerate this into a conversation across the committee table? I don't think that's how the committee works, but it's not working like that. Jamie, if you'd like to push on, and if you'd like to make an intervention on a specific point to question Jamie on something then by the committee, I don't think that's how the committee works. I do thank Mr Llyw for expressing his interest in this. I would plead with him. I know that we've voted on a number of these amendments already, but please have a think and listen to these businesses. What about Sutherland Brothers airport industrial estate at Wick airport? We operate on an industrial estate with poor public transport. Our staff have no alternative but to use their car to commute to work. That includes in the early hours of the morning or late in the evenings to get to and from work. Many of the amendments that we're proposing and other parties are proposing are to exempt certain shift workers, certain locations, and I think rightfully so. I appeal to the heart of some of the members of this committee to listen to the businesses in your own patches. Listen to what they're saying. Don't listen to what we're saying. If you don't agree with me, that's perfectly fine and decent. Please listen to the businesses in your own constituencies and regions. They're not happy and we're trying to exempt them as a result of the comments that they've given us. I'm happy to give way. I thank the member for giving way but would he accept that these decisions are all better made by the local authorities because they know the local area better and cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh are more keen on the levee because it's the city centre that are the big problem and many other local authorities, if not all, are less keen on the levee because they don't have city centres. Mr Mason, you're implying that this workplace parking levee will only be applied in cities. It doesn't say that. Nowhere in Mr Finnie's suggested amendments does it state that these levees can only be applied in cities. Now, actually, if that was an amendment that you wanted to bring forward at stage 3, I'd probably support you on that because that would secure these rural and suburban areas where there is poor public transport. In a second, but please let me respond to your first intervention. You are making an assumption that it is only local authorities city councils who would want to introduce this levee. We are giving the power to every local authority in Scotland to do this so that not in cities may have to pay the levee. That's what we're trying to protect for those businesses, those workers. Mr Smith, happily. One of the fundamental flaws is that although this is a power that some people argue will only be imposed by cities, say Glasgow or Edinburgh, the reality is that thousands upon thousands of people from outwith those city boundaries travel into those cities every single day for employment purposes, often from areas such as the Borders to their poor public transport. They will be forced to pay this levee but not a single penny will be spent in their area to support improving public transport. Secondly, they will have no say over this because it will be a neighbouring local authority in a city that will decide despite the fact that they will have to pay. You're absolutely right, Mr Smith. I think that's something we really need to reflect on is that if Glasgow City Council introduced the levee, and I'm sure Mr Mason would support them in that, what about the workers from Ayrshire and Reclyde who have to drive to those premises? Please let me finish. In some of the industrial states, even within cities, cities have industrial states that aren't served by public transport. Cities have people that work evening shifts and work early mornings and have no other means of getting to work. So there's actually not just people who live within the city that you're discouraging from taking their car, you're also discouraging people who have no choice of living peripheral local authorities. The consequence of those actions by a local authority who introduces the levee will be felt by neighbouring local authorities and people who live outwith those local authorities. Mr Love. In a question that I posed to a councillor from Glasgow, there's quite a substantial number of people who travel into Glasgow or Edinburgh who actually pay car parking charges at the moment to go to work. There are some employers that do charge their employers for parking. I think that's out of the discretion of those employers. They obviously know their workforce better. What I wouldn't like to do is give a blanket right that all employers have to charge a parking charge at their place of work. I think... Sorry, but if I look... I'm talking about NCP car parks or parking in Bacannon Galleries or sorry, or a parking metre in a street. So they're not getting charged by their employer. They're actually getting physically at this moment in time charged by the council. Indeed. Are you suggesting that they should also have to pay a workplace parking living on top of the private car parking charges? What I'm saying is that there are people that are paying to park in Glasgow and Edinburgh. That therefore reduces the comment that Colin Smith made, the thousands of people that he suggests are going to be paying this because there are people who are already paying car parking charges at the moment. I'll leave you to that. As I said, we're creating national legislation. We're creating the parameters to levy, which a local authority can introduce that will mandate all businesses within that local authority area to introduce a levy. There's no pick and choose here. The idea, as I said, going back to local exemptions, that one local authority might decide that it's okay to exempt, but another may not, will create a huge unfairness, I think, in our working force. And as I said, going back to Mr Simpson's original amendments, he wants to exclude certain types of sites and locations. I think that it's the right thing to do. Those sites are the furthest away from our cities, the least provided by public transport and tend to have 24 operations or shift workers. As I said, I'll go back to my earlier comments. I've nearly finished, but if it's important. Would he at least agree that we're probably all pretty well agreed that in a village or an out-of-town workplace no local authority, nor