Chamber and committees

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will use the time that I have to outline the impact of the car park tax on my constituents here in Edinburgh and the wider Lothian region. Motorists in Edinburgh are set to become the highest taxed in any part of Scotland and indeed the United Kingdom, with the SNP and Green councillors on the City of Edinburgh Council planning to introduce not only the car park tax but a huge roll-out of parking zone permits across the capital. The majority of motorists in the capital will very soon be facing the burden of having to pay to park outside their homes and at their workplaces.

The City of Edinburgh Council stated that there are around 32,500 eligible parking spaces across the capital. The council estimates that it expects £14 million in revenue to be raised by the car park tax, based on the £428 per space that Nottingham currently charges.

Having no upper limit on the tax risks the City of Edinburgh Council charging individuals and businesses higher and higher charges to increase the revenue stream—all that at the very time that SNP and Green ministers are cutting local council budgets, leaving councils with little option but to use the car park tax to fill that financial void. It is little wonder that the City of Edinburgh Council—one of the lowest funded councils in Scotland by the SNP-Green Scottish Government—has been forced to look at implementing the car park tax to fill the financial black holes that it faces.

We all know that the cost of living is going up for people across Scotland, making it harder for hundreds of thousands of people across the country to break even every month. Food prices have been on the rise and pressures on energy costs are seeing bills increase.

However, the car park tax and parking zone permit charges that motorists in the capital will face will see families facing on average an additional £630 put on to their budgets after May’s council elections if the SNP and Green councillors are returned in Edinburgh.

People outside the capital travelling to work in Edinburgh from the growing communities in West Lothian, East Lothian and Midlothian, the Borders and Fife, will have to pay the City of Edinburgh Council that charge, which will be of little or no benefit to the local authorities where they live.

As I have outlined, Edinburgh motorists are facing the double whammy of new parking zone costs and the car park tax. The cost of an annual parking permit in Edinburgh is already £202, which is the third highest in the UK—in fact, it is £82 higher than in London. Overall, the average cost of a permit in cities across the UK is £103, almost half of what it is here in Edinburgh.

This legislation, giving councils the power to implement car parking taxes, is typical of the SNP-Green Government—it grants councils the powers and then blames them for putting the policies in place. That is totally unacceptable.

The Scottish Conservatives have been steadfast in our opposition to the car park tax. It is an indiscriminate tax, and it is one that will hit the most vulnerable in this country. We will see people being priced out of owning a car. The transport minister would not take my intervention earlier, but ministers have put forward a clear message, which is that poorer people in this country cannot afford to have and run a car. That is the message that this debate will send. I am happy to take an intervention from the ministers.

Will the member take an intervention?

Good morning. I thank the minister and his officials for joining us.

I want to carry on with Mark Griffin’s and Paul McLennan’s line of questioning and ask specifically about Homes for Scotland’s concerns about the likelihood, as it stands, of NPF4 reducing the number of homes that will be delivered. Obviously, that will exacerbate the housing crisis if it happens. I have listened to what you and your officials have said about local plans moving to a 10-year timescale, but I wonder whether you can give more detail on the mechanism for introducing additional land. What will that look like? We have been talking about open and transparent processes, but how is that sort of thing being put into NPF4? After all, that issue will be important to a lot of communities.

That is helpful. One of the key things that I have picked up during the committee’s work on planning is that it needs to be accompanied by a 10-year capital investment plan across the public sector. That will be challenging for the national health service and education services, in particular. The minister will be aware of conversations that we have had in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee about how a lot of new-build development can destabilise general practice surgeries. Therefore, we need to see that complementary capital investment.

My other question is about renewables. We have received some evidence expressing concern that NPF4, as it is currently drafted, could lead to delays in renewable energy developments. The minister said that he uses the word “minimum” in terms of numbers expected around housing. Is it the same for targets around renewables? Is it your opinion that we need to see a presumption in favour of renewables in NPF4? Again, the language will be key. Local authorities will be delivering not necessarily targets but the minimums that we expect.

That is helpful. My question is on the draft delivery plan. I note that the onshore wind policy statement specifically looks at 8GW to 12GW of onshore wind being delivered in a much shorter timescale than we had in which to deliver the renewable energy that we now produce. Planning departments will look at renewable energy projects, although they will not necessarily take them forward. There is a huge issue around how we meet the target and what delivery plan the Scottish Government expects local authorities to use. Often, the planning authorities that are involved are large and rural rather than urban. I would be interested in seeing where the discussion goes. It is possibly something that we can take forward around the draft delivery plan. The devil will be in the detail.

I thank the witnesses for joining us. During the pandemic, COSLA issued framework guidance on supporting people with no recourse to public funds. That guidance is being updated. We have heard evidence, and received written evidence, about inconsistencies in how that is being rolled out across local authorities. Have the witnesses seen that, in their experience?

I will bring in Maggie Lennon first. If anyone else wants to come in, they should put an R in the chat function.

Yes—thanks.

Thank you for that. I am not sure whether anyone else wanted to come in on that point.

If not, I will move on to discuss models that are in place to support unaccompanied children and young people and how such models could be developed. Perhaps we could bring in Phil Arnold on this. How is that different, how do services engage directly with young people, and is there a model that the committee could consider?

I have a question about the Scottish crisis fund and about how you think that has made a difference. In the interests of time, I will merge that with my second question. When you look at pressured areas, such as Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council, how has that made a difference, and how has it been administered?

Andy Sirel, you touched on the role of the British Red Cross. I will bring you in, and anyone else who wants to comment can put an R in the chat function.