Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was a very useful session that we had with the Deputy First Minister just now.

The instrument deals with a number of areas. I could be content with some of them, but there is one that I am really not comfortable with, which is the power to close student accommodation and boarding accommodation. As we heard during the earlier discussion, the power has never been used during the entire pandemic—the Government has relied on guidance—so I can see no justification for hanging on to it for another six months. I do not think that Mr Swinney made a compelling argument for doing so. If the Government did not use a power—which was an emergency power—during the height of the pandemic, I can see no justification for hanging on to it now that we are in a much better place than we have been.

The instrument throws up the issue of what happens when we, as parliamentarians, are asked to approve instruments that contain a number of provisions, some of which we like and some of which we do not. There needs to be some flexibility in the system to allow us all to pick and choose. If that could be reported to the lead committee, that would be useful.

On the basis that I do not like one of the provisions, I will vote against the instrument, but I would much rather have the ability to pick off any provisions that I do not like. However, that option is unfortunately not available to us. On that basis, I will vote against it.

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

Will the minister give way?

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

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

As a follow-up, why have you chosen not to use those powers and set out further exemptions?

You said that it is up to local councils to set out exemptions, and then you agreed with me that you could do it in regulations, which you can but you have chosen not to.

We will come to that in the debate.

Oh, come on.

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

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

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

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

He went on to say that the schemes will

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

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

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

“businesses across Scotland will now face a postcode lottery”

as different councils take different decisions. She fears that some

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

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

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

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

Will the member take an intervention?