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