I WATCHED the Transport Bill debates in Holyrood with particular interest in the Workplace Parking Levy, to see how opposition parties would explain their change of mind on this subject. Both Tory and Labour committed to press the Scottish Government to introduce this levy in their 2017 local election manifestos for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
At the end of the debate, 56 SNP and Green MSPs voted in favour, 29 Tory and LibDem MSPs voted against and 18 Labour MSPs sat on their hands and abstained, leaving the question of whether or not they will be pursuing the Scottish Government to introduce a Workplace Parking Levy unanswered. As no explanations were offered, it appears the Unionist parties’ number one policy of opposing everything proposed by the SNP now extends to manifesto commitments that they should still be pursuing.
Neil Bibby, Murdo Fraser, Mike Rumbles, Jackie Baillie and others appear to have based their case on the erroneous belief that the Workplace Parking Levy is a tax on individuals, when in fact it is a charge on companies for parking spaces provided by them for employees.
Much of the debate centred around exemptions from the levy. There is no disagreement over many of these, such as NHS premises, but many MSPs wanted to extend exemption to people in the lower-income groups. This could become a quagmire, as almost every MSP proposed different criteria to define who should be exempted but none (as far as I can remember) had any proposals on how this was to be carried out.
It became clear that little, ifany, thought had been given to a number of questions, such as how the company would be given exemption for these spaces, and whether they would be any means of checking that these spaces were being used properly. Other problems, such as whether employees would have to declare their free use of allocated spaces for income tax and if it would affect allowances, were not raised.
Tory Party leadership contender Michelle Ballantyne demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the benefits system, with her amendments to exclude persons mentioned in Section 58a in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, a Personal Independence Payment, Disability Assistance, Carer’s Allowance, a Job Start payment, or a member of the armed forces.
I was left wondering if any of the opposition MSPs had ever seen a typical city centre company car park. For a start, most of these have a very limited number of space, and cars in them are obviously not owned by anyone in lower-income groups; as the limited number of spaces is usually allocated to starting with the chief executive and working downwards, spaces are more likely to be allocated to higher-rate income tax payers than anybody on the basic rate.
Instead of a serious debate on the future structure of transport in Scotland, the debate became bogged down by amendments from MSPs that even contradicted their own parties’ recent manifestos.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
HOME Secretary Priti Patel’s approach is that of an agrochemical enthusiast appointed as head gardener of this “green and pleasant land”. Her aim is to overdose her plants with pesticides to demonstrate a better yield, regardless of the quality of the produce.
Contrast this with the organic allotment holder’s maternal/paternal approach that fully nurtures her/his plants with optimum light, humus and water in order to bring them to peak perfection in due season.
If I were a plant, I know in whose garden I would wish to grow.
Geoff Naylor
Winchester, Hampshire
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel