Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 30 April 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1514 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

Everyone wants to know what progress has been made on the issue, whether the public money that has been invested in meeting the policy objective relates to the target, and whether the target is appropriate and necessary relative to the scale of the problem. That is what I am getting at in all of this.

Let us move on to the issue of how we deliver the reduction in mileage, or just usage in general, and the role that other forms of government, particularly local government, can play in that. Has there been any conflict in that regard? Earlier, I got a sense that there might have been some conflict in terms of the Government’s overall national ambition versus the delivery on the ground, much of which is under the control of councils, which have to use their budgets to deliver.

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

That is helpful. However, the crux of my question is that Glasgow and Edinburgh have already introduced low-emission zones—I appreciate that they were controversial, and I hope that they are serving their intended purpose—but other measures were afforded to local authorities in the 2019 act. Some of us sat around the table and progressed that legislation—or, indeed, opposed bits of it—so I know that things such as the workplace parking levy and the ability to create boundaries around towns for congestion or pay-as-you-go charges were not introduced. It seems to me that the only measures that local authorities want to be introduced are enhancement of the low-emission zones or another form of pay-as-you-go scheme. What has happened over the past six years that has prevented local authorities from doing that? Why are they going back to the Government and asking for more powers?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

I have a wider question. Why are the councils that want more powers to implement more car reduction measures not using the measures that were afforded to them in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

I will let you take a break from answering questions, cabinet secretary, as I know that you are finding it tough to speak because you are not well. I will direct my next questions to Transport Scotland.

While I am talking about the target, I want to pick up on some of the statistics, as data is obviously important. In her opening statement, the cabinet secretary talked about 2022 data. The first question is, why is there no data for 2023 or 2024? Is that in production? Also, did the cabinet secretary say that car use or domestic transport accounted for 39 per cent of all transport emissions, and was it cars or domestic transport that accounted for 12.4 per cent of all emissions? Colin Beattie picked up on that point earlier, and I want to be clear on what the numbers are.

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

That says to me that the bigger issue is other forms of transport, which are emitting more. What is being done to reduce those emissions?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

How do we balance that with the risk of people perceiving those measures as plugging big holes in council finances, albeit with the right intention? Environmental intentions would be seen as laudable and would garner cross-party support. However, is there a concern that, if the perception is that the money raised from those so-called punitive measures is not ring fenced and is not reinvested in active or sustainable travel or in other improvements to roads or public services, the additional measures that big cities are asking for will raise huge amounts of money that will go into the black hole of local government?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

That is a helpful tone. What do you mean by unnecessary?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

That is very helpful. What engagement have you had with the new UK Government about potential capital funding for transport infrastructure projects in Scotland? What has the response been to any requests?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

I know that she has a sore throat.

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Jamie Greene

I know that, so I will try to spread my questions across the panel. I do have quite a lot of ground to cover, though, and I am afraid that you are first up, cabinet secretary.

I want to take you right back to the beginning of the session, when the convener asked whether you accept not just the report’s recommendations but its content and findings. Turning to paragraph 1 on page 3, which sets out the first of the key messages, I think that the first two sentences are fair in talking about transport as a source of greenhouse gas emissions and the “ambitious” nature of the target in the first place. Just for the record, is there anything else in that paragraph that you agree with? That was very unclear from your first answer. Do you agree with the rest of that paragraph?