Item 6 is a debate on a Member's legislative proposal on a workplace parking levy. Can I just remind Members that this is the 30-minute slot, where supporting Members have three minutes to speak, and the Minister has six minutes to respond? So, we now move to the proposal on a workplace parking levy, and I call on Jenny Rathbone to move that motion.

Motion NDM7188 Jenny Rathbone

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes a proposal for a Bill to enable the implementation of a workplace parking levy.

2. Notes that the purpose of this Bill would be to:

a) enable local authorities to implement a workplace parking levy, dependent on the number of parking spaces reserved for employees;

b) enable local authorities to use the revenue to strengthen public transport and active travel routes;

c) reduce traffic congestion in major population centres;

d) encourage employers to promote active travel plans for their staff and advocate for better public transport;

e) urge Welsh Government to encourage local authorities in Wales to implement this levy, as part of a suite of measures to combat the carbon emissions which are causing a climate emergency.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Nicely following on from the plastic promises, if we're serious about climate change, then we need to use all the tools at our disposal to get the behaviour change we need. In line with the 5p carrier-bag levy, a modest workplace parking levy would get employers and employees thinking about the environmental cost of using the car to get to work, and improve the sustainability of their business operations.

How many businesses really consider this and have an active travel plan to share with their employees? Clearly some do. HM Revenue and Customs is relocating from Llanishen to Cardiff city centre, where next to none of their staff will be using private cars to get to work. The BBC is having to think about this too, as they move from Llandaf to Central Square. A workplace parking levy could concentrate BBC minds on how many vehicles they really need for that rapid response to breaking news, and the transport of expensive and sometimes heavy recording equipment, which, practically speaking, I agree needs to be done in one of their dedicated vehicles.

This charge would be on the use of commuter parking places and complements a future clean air Act, as well as the draft national development framework. It's designed to encourage employers to manage and potentially reduce the amount of workplace parking places they provide, or as to whether that resource could be used more effectively for some other activity. It would give public bodies an injection of cash to pump prime public transport and active travel routes, where these are inadequate, which, unfortunately, is the case in most parts of Wales. Nowhere in Wales do we have the public transport infrastructure enjoyed by other comparable European countries.

Nottingham introduced a workplace parking levy in 2012. This is a lot easier to implement than a standard congestion charge, and they were clearly outlining that the first 10 parking places are free. It does not apply to disabled parking places, front-line emergency services or vehicles being used for the transport of goods to and from as part of their business. Staff parking at hospitals and other premises are also exempt. The impact has been fantastic. The air quality has improved, nitrogen oxide emissions have gone down and it's generated £44 million in the last seven years, ring-fenced for transport projects. Nottingham bus and tram use per head is the highest in the country outside London. Employers rather than employees are responsible for paying the workplace parking levy, although eight out of 10 companies in Nottingham do pass the charge on to their employees, which stands this year at £415 a year or £8 a week. So, at least it encourages drivers to consider other modes of transport or at the very least car sharing.

The power to impose a workplace parking levy was granted to transport authorities in England and Wales under the Transport Act 2000, but no Welsh local authorities have yet taken this up. Is it that they aren't aware of their new powers or did they body-swerve away from it?

Cardiff did include a workplace parking levy in a recent green paper and say they're still considering it. And towering over it is the High Court ruling last year against the UK Government, Welsh Government and local authorities, including Cardiff, to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions in the shortest time possible. We have to remind ourselves that Cardiff's air pollution is now worse than Manchester or Birmingham, which are much larger cities.

It isn't just Cardiff that has so far failed to follow Nottingham's example. Newport and Swansea have no plans either and Wrexham is keeping a watching brief on how this pans out in other local authorities in recognition of its potential contribution to tackle town centre congestion. They've recently imposed parking controls on their own councillors and staff using the council's town centre premises.

There is a problem with just leaving this to local authorities. The Scottish workplace parking levy, recently passed by the Scottish Parliament, could lead to a large increase in income for, say, Edinburgh, which they'll no doubt spend on local transport proposals, but it won't solve the congestion caused by commuters coming from further afield, say, the border areas, where the transport provision is so abysmal that people are obliged to come by car.

So, this Bill would enable a whole-of-Wales focus on where workplace parking levies are required in line with the particularities of each local authority and where they could shape it to their own local circumstances. Transport for Wales and the city deals would need to have a role in shaping the application of the money to measures that will maximise the reduction of car use for commuting to work.

I'm pleased to contribute to this debate. I must say that I do have some concerns about this motion. That said, I think that Jenny Rathbone has made some very good points. I think that we recognise that there are some good ideas behind these proposals. And, yes, of course, we all want to see public transport strengthened and active travel routes adopted. All of that we agree with. And there's a need to reduce traffic congestion in our main urban centres and to help deal with the climate emergency. 

I think where I have some issues with the motion is that I think that by placing the onus on the businesses, which then, Jenny, as you said, can be passed on to the workers, it strikes me that this may be a tax that could end up hitting some of the people who can least afford it, which I don't think is the original intention behind it.

Yes, we talk about the metro and that's a great idea, but we're still some way off seeing that realised fully in Cardiff. You mention Nottingham, and, yes, it would be wonderful to have more tram routes, more bus routes and more sustainable transport, but at a point where you haven't still got to that level, I fear that people would be having to pay this charge without actually having that real alternative that you mentioned, Jenny.

In my sort of area, Monmouthshire, in rural areas, the problem of a lack of alternatives to the car is even more pronounced. Public transport is often less than adequate; people living in rural areas often feel they have no alternative but to rely on the motor car. I must say, however, I'm pleased that, since the introduction of the climate emergency and the well-being of future generations Act, there has been a presumption more recently against building and giving planning permission for housing developments that aren't adequately served by public transport, so I think the situation is gradually changing. But I do wonder whether it's a little bit too early for these sorts of tax measures that would directly affect people, as I say, travelling to work.

I think we should be looking to provide positive encouragement, and I think there's a suite of measures here, which you've spoken about, Jenny, which you could, over time, move to fully implementing when those alternatives are there. Of course, we want to encourage people at the moment to use electric cars; those are in the early stages of development and uptake. And, as far as I can see it, this levy would apply to all kinds of vehicles, electric vehicles as well, so I'm wondering whether we really want to do that at this stage of time, when we want to encourage people to change from the fossil fuels to electric vehicles, or electric vehicles on the road, and we should do that by encouraging them rather than doing, let's face it, what would be a tax.

The motion refers to the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. It's been a number of years now since that piece of legislation went through this place; I remember scrutinising it as Chair of the Enterprise and Business Committee. A lot of good thinking behind that Act, but here we are a number of years on, and there's still a lot of the aims of that Act to be realised. So, I think, as far as it goes, Jenny Rathbone, you've put some good ideas forward, but I think we're a little bit too—we're not at the point yet where I would say that this charge would achieve the aims that we would like to see, and would avoid penalising some of the people who can least afford it.

I'm also pleased to contribute to this debate. Of course, this motion isn't a silver bullet, but it's certainly something that has an important contribution to make, first of all, as we've heard, to reduce congestion and traffic, and that will have benefits in terms of reducing air pollution. We know that we are facing a public health crisis, with some 2,000 deaths as a result of air pollution in Wales every year, never mind those who suffer ill health as a result of air pollution. Reducing emissions would help to tackle environmental damage, water pollution, soil pollution, thereby bringing benefits to biodiversity too. And it would, of course, help to encourage active travel and that, in turn, would help with tackling obesity and tackling a sedentary lifestyle. It would also be important in tackling mental health problems and encouraging people to adopt active travel.

So, there are cross-issue benefits, I think, in this proposal. And, of course, Wales is falling behind in this respect because we now see Scotland proposing to introduce this levy through their transport Bill. And as we heard, it's already being implemented in some councils in England—Nottingham and Birmingham being two of those. So, this isn't a pie-in-the-sky proposal; it's already happening.

Now, there are questions around it, of course, and, you know, we've touched on a few of those—the reference earlier to the burden being passed to employees and workers. In eight out of 10, I think, situations you referenced in opening this discussion, so we do need careful consideration around maybe who would be exempt from being subjected to the levy. Clearly, people with particular needs, maybe, who aren't as able to use public transport for different reasons, need to be in our minds in that respect. Parents with children as well, many of whom have to factor in the school run—and there's a whole other debate about tackling school runs—but they need to be considered as well. And, of course, not being able to afford a parking levy would potentially become a barrier or deter new parents possibly from returning to work. So, all of that needs to be considered. Any levy would need to be proportionate to an employee's salary, as well, of course, as the cost and practicalities of public transport. But we know, of course, that 80 per cent of those commuting in Wales use a car, only 4 per cent use the bus, 4 per cent use the train, and 2 per cent use a bike. So, we know that this needs to be tackled and I think this would be a positive step in that respect.

Whilst we can understand the aim of this motion, which is designed to encourage people out of cars and onto public transport, any such legislation is likely to hit the less well off amongst the local authority employees. Those on executive salaries could well afford the levy and would carry on as before, whilst the worst off may be forced to use public transport, which may well be inconvenient or inadequate. We have to recognise—

Will you take an intervention? 

Yes, of course, Llyr. 

The point I'd like to make is: would it not be sensible, therefore, for those who earn more to pay a higher levy?

Yes, I agree—that may well be, but the administration of that may be quite difficult as well. But I agree, that is a possibility, of course.

We have to recognise that outside the larger conurbations, such as Cardiff, public transport can be erratic and sparse, particularly at such times as the manual element of local authority employees would need to access it, as opposed to the office staff who may start work at later times or indeed enjoy the ability to work flexible hours.

It is a simple fact that all infrastructure planning for the last 40 years plus has been designed around the car, meaning that many employees, whether public or private, have no alternative but to use their own transport. We must therefore accept that it will take some time before such legislation as that proposed is actually practical. There's also the possibility—no, probability—that local authority employees would forsake authority employee car parks for free public car parks, thus limiting availability for those wishing to access the local town facilities, such as shopping et cetera.

As any legislation could only apply to the public sector, the Government cannot force private employers to administer such a levy. Public employees would, in effect, be subsidising the transport infrastructure for private employees. Private employees would also be the beneficiaries of any traffic alleviation that the levy may instigate. I'm afraid that, however well intended, any such legislation would, in effect, be counterproductive in its aims.

No-one wants to have to drive to work, nor have the expense of running a car that's going to spend most of the time parked outside their workplace. But many are forced to because this Government and others have been unable to provide a viable public transport alternative, much less one that's as convenient as a car. The policies of successful UK and Welsh Governments and local authorities have resulted in commercial zones being placed in locations that are inaccessible by public transport, as has housing. So, please, please, please stop treating drivers and business as if the congestion and pollution they cause are all their fault. It's not. It's the fault of people like this Welsh Government and local authorities for not planning ahead.

Business rates work off the rateable value of the workplace into which is already being factored parking facilities on site. So, this legislative proposal would result in businesses being charged twice for the same thing. Businesses will either pass the levy on to their employees, as many obviously are, or their customers will take a financial hit that will curb expansion and impact on job creation. And for what? A half-baked, vague, mistaken notion that councils will use the tax to improve public transport and encourage active travel. That's utter fantasy. This is just a way of getting councils a bit more money to fund core services that this Government has failed to give them proper support for so far. If it weren't, this proposal would not just be about enabling councils to use the money for public transport, it would be forcing them to do so. But it isn't, and I note there's no mention of any of the levy funds being ring-fenced.

By adding new taxes and levies, Wales becomes a less attractive place to start or bring your business. This proposal won't reduce congestion or carbon emissions unless, as it may well do, it leads to less employment in Wales. So, I won't be supporting this Bill. The Government should be investing in alternative transport for workers and improving town planning, but instead they're coming up with a new tax. They want to look as if they're doing something, but they don't want to spend any money on it, so they'll come up with a way to tax Wales more. I think it's a terrible idea. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I call on the Minister for Economy and Transport?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd firstly like to thank the Member for putting forward this legislative proposal. As Jenny Rathbone has, however, said, there is existing primary legislation under the Transport Act 2000 that already allows workplace parking levies to be implemented by local authorities in Wales and England. I'm not going to go into too much detail about the Act, other than to confirm that it makes detailed provision with regard to the use of the net proceeds from schemes, and provides that the net proceeds are available only—only. Michelle Brown was absolutely wrong to make assumptions on a lack of evidence. They can only be used for application by the authority for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of local transport policies of the local traffic authority.

As such, it's a matter for local authorities to decide whether or not to introduce such measures in their area, but that is not just shifting the responsibility to local authorities to deal with this problem. As a Government, we are fully aware of the problems that we are facing, and on 29 April of this year, we declared a climate emergency. We're taking a lead and meeting the calls for action of people of all ages concerned about the impacts of climate change. Wales is, as Members have said, currently car dependent in the extreme. There is no arguing that at all. Traffic volume has increased by over a third during the course of devolution, reaching a peak of 29.4 billion vehicle kilometres in 2018. The vast majority of that traffic, 94 per cent, was accounted for by cars, taxis and vans. So, tackling our ingrained overdependency on cars and enabling a shift to more sustainable forms of travel, such as walking, such as cycling and public transport, may well be challenging, but it is absolutely necessary.

All forms of behavioural change can be challenging, whether it's ending smoking in public places or ending our love affair with unhealthy fast food, but it is absolutely necessary. And a recognition of the sustainable transport hierarchy, which prioritises sustainable travel modes, will be a key pillar of the new Wales transport strategy to be published in 2020. Our goal is for people of all ages and all abilities to be confident that they can make everyday journeys by walking, by cycling or by public transport, and do so safely.

Over the last two financial years, Dirprwy Lywydd, we have seen a significant increase in the funding available to create and improve active travel infrastructure. And since December 2017, all local authorities have had plans in place for integrated active travel networks for the 142 largest settlements in Wales. And in 2018, the active travel fund was established to create these networks.

Jenny Rathbone identified the excellent example of Nottingham, where local leadership has led to the successful implementation of revenue raising workplace parking levies, which have been transformational, and proving yet again that Michelle Brown is absolutely wrong to make assertions. That particular scheme has raised £9 million in revenue. It costs around about £500,000 to operate, and the net revenue has been invested in transformational tram and bus provision for the city.

I would most certainly, therefore, urge local authorities to consider utilising the Transport Act to reduce congestion in urban places, and in so doing to raise investment for public transport and active travel infrastructure. Reversing the decline in bus patronage is crucial in ensuring that we can reduce reliance on private vehicles, to provide alternatives to the private car, as highlighted by Nick Ramsay in his contribution. And that is specifically what the buses Bill is designed to do. In parallel, I've provided £1 million for four integrated responsive transport pilots that will test innovative forms of demand-responsive bus travel across Wales.

In 2018 we consulted on a clean air zone framework for Wales, with a summary of the results published in April of this year. The framework provides guidance to local authorities who are considering options to address local air quality issues to support the achievement of EU limits as well as local air quality management actions and include the role of parking levies.

Dirprwy Lywydd, there is nothing stopping local authorities from doing what Jenny Rathbone is, I feel correctly, advocating. The powers are there, the reasons for taking action and to utilise them are clear. And so, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd urge supporters of the scheme to press their local authorities to consider this proven intervention. 

Thank you. Can I now ask Jenny Rathbone to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank all the Members for their contributions, because it's really important that, in taking forward this measure, if you will allow me to do so, we properly scrutinise some of the disadvantages that could arise.

I absolutely acknowledge the dilemma of people, particularly in rural areas, who struggle to maintain a car on low wages, simply because there isn't any other means of getting there, and we absolutely have to acknowledge that, but it is down to us, the state, to intervene to ensure that everybody has options. Yes, electric vehicles reduce fossil fuel emissions, but they don't, of themselves, reduce carbon emissions. So, that doesn't actually resolve the problem.

The disabled are exempt in the Nottingham scheme, and I would expect, obviously, that disabled parking would be exempt in the new one.

Now, the school run was mentioned, I think by Llyr. There are some schools in my constituency where they're using a very restricted playground area for parking staff cars. We have lost sight of what we're trying to do here. So, I think, if nothing else, this workplace parking levy would force people to think about what use they're making of space that's currently occupied by cars.

In terms of David Rowlands's point, I have to emphasise that compliance in Nottingham is 100 per cent. All employers pay. This is not only the public sector paying for it; this is all employers who use parking spaces in their business. Yes, there are some important things to consider, like people who work unsocial hours. ASLEF gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament and pointed out that the driver of the first train out of the depot needed to use their car to get there. Absolutely. And equally, somebody who is working the night shift would be wanting to come home at six in the morning after eight hours at work when there may not be the public transport links available. 

In terms of how it might be applied to reinforce the inequality between town-centre shopping areas where parking charges are levied and out-of-town shopping areas where no parking levies are raised is something that would certainly be worthy of consideration. But the levy is, as the Minister has said, ring-fenced only for transport proposals, not to be used for anything else. And I'm delighted to hear the Minister saying that, in the new hierarchy of priorities that are going to be published next year, walking, cycling and public transport are going to be of a higher order than the use of the private motor car. So I think, perhaps, the most interesting thing to come out of this is the idea of a sliding scale for employees, which would obviously have to be an adaptation of what is being done in Nottingham at the moment. 

Thank you. The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we will have a vote on this item during voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.