Transport Bill — Use of receipts from licensing schemes — 10 May 2000

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We now come to the second of the terrible twins. We have dealt with congestion charging and we are about to consider workplace parking. Although this topic was mentioned in the debate on new clause 28, that new clause referred only to congestion charging. This debate is purely about workplace parking, and I have been asked to make that point clear.

pupils parking at their schools or colleges.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee E , 14 March 2000; c. 1014.]

In the long run it will simply add to the cost of employing Londoners. Expensive for small companies, adding costs does not consider the needs of the companies. For example our two spaces are for sales staff who regularly drive to meetings outside London or who have "samples" in their car.

It's using businesses to solve the transport problem--this is a Government responsibility.

Car spaces are provided because they are needed by us to run our business which involves a lot of travelling.

Business will face a bill of at least £2 billion a year should the Government's ill-thought out proposals for workplace charging come to fruition. Such a policy will serve only to put firmly into reverse any improvements to business competitiveness derived through greater investment in transport.

Non-domestic parking charging would do little to change behaviour as the tax is charged to businesses rather than individuals. If charges are not, as is likely, passed to staff, the charge will operate as an additional tax on business. If the charge is passed to staff, business will have to act, again, as an unpaid tax collector. The charge could also cause friction between employer and employees.

The Company believes that the introduction of a workplace parking levy presents innumerable practical problems. The opportunities for evasion and/or the implications of people's attempts to avoid paying the levy have not been adequately considered in the Bill or accompanying draft guidance.

We would welcome flexibility to allow, for example, the local authority to raise and administer the levy--

through some form of "pay and display" approach, as has been suggested by some businesses in the West Midlands. This would remove the administrative burden from business and levy the charge directly on the user.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:--

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 371.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 129 (+2 tell)081.9%
Independent1 0033.3%
Lab326 (+2 tell) 0079.0%
LDem41 0087.2%
PC1 0025.0%
SNP2 0033.3%
UUP0 3033.3%
Total:371 132078.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive