division_name: Transport Bill - Use of receipts from licensing schemes
motion: <p>Brought up, and read the First time. 
  
  <p>
   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  <p> 
  
    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.
   
  
  <p>pupils parking at their schools or colleges.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee E , 14 March 2000; c. 1014.]
  <p>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.
  <p>It's using businesses to solve the transport problem--this is a Government responsibility.
  <p>Car spaces are provided because they are needed by us to run our business which involves a lot of travelling.
  <p>Business will face a bill of at least &#163;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.
  <p> 
   
  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.
  <p>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of people's attempts to avoid paying the levy have not been adequately considered in the Bill or accompanying draft guidance.
  <p>We would welcome flexibility to allow, for example, the local authority to raise and administer the levy--
  <p>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.
  <p>Question put,  That the clause be read a Second time:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 132, Noes 371.
  