Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am thinking about some of the points that the witnesses have made and particularly about some of the creativity that we see in communities, the way that projects are set up and their history and diversity. Does that make it difficult to mainstream a particular model that can be taken to every health board across the country to show what such projects deliver, how to employ consistent monitoring and evaluation and how to develop assessments of the financial savings?

Is there a difficulty in trying to interface a grass-roots movement and grass-roots projects with some of the harder objectives and systems that the NHS, health and social care partnerships or community planning partnerships have? How do we get that creativity in communities interfacing with those who actually have the money in a way that can deliver the objectives in a consistent way?

I ask Robbie McGhee to start off from the perspective of his projects and how they have managed to negotiate that.

That is interesting. When it comes to how that taxonomy is interpreted within the devolution settlement, within the UK and across Europe, where there are sub-state actors that are looking to invest in particular technologies, do you have any thoughts on how that might play out?

We are meeting in Scotland, which has vast renewable resources. If you were to devise a green taxonomy for Scotland, maybe by creating a financial centre for green investment in Edinburgh, what would that look like? Could that exist within an EU taxonomy that is perhaps tilted in a slightly different direction, or which emphasises some technologies over others? Do you have any thoughts on that?

The tracker is a really useful tool and a really useful summary for policy makers. It is exciting to hear that you want to overlay some of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and devolution aspects.

The tracker highlights financial services, greening finance and the development of a UK taxonomy. Where do you see potential divergence or alignment with the EU or other countries that are developing their own taxonomies? In the EU, there has been a strong debate about the inclusion of gas and nuclear in its taxonomy. Do you see an inevitable alignment there, given that we face similar energy challenges across Europe, or is there a different tilt or perspective with other countries that might end up getting wrapped up in some of the trade deals that the UK is looking to set up?

I have a final question about the EU emissions trading scheme. I think that you say in your tracker that you expect the scope of that to be significantly widened. Do you see the UK falling into the same scope, or do think that there might be tensions over aviation or other areas?

Is there a need for that consistency? You mentioned Inverclyde as an exemplar, but does there need to be guidance on the issue to all health boards or is it the responsibility of community planning partnerships? Should there be an expectation on authorities to do that mapping work and evolve the approach?

I see a fuzziness between the boundaries of what projects are doing. They might be delivering objectives in different areas.

I ask Diana Murray for her reflections on that.

The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee has today called for a “presumption against exploration” in relation to new oil and gas, making the case that renewables investment is the “best way” to tackle the energy price crisis.

I am proud of Scotland’s progress on renewables. Will the First Minister press the UK Government to end its policy of maximum economic recovery and to start listening to the climate science?

No.

If councils decide that workplace parking levies are part of the solution, Mr Simpson must trust them to decide what exemptions should be put in place and what levels of charge are appropriate for their local areas.

No.

During the committee debate yesterday, we heard some contorted arguments from members who oppose the levy purely on principle. For example, Mr Simpson made the point that, because income from the levy in Nottingham has gone down over time, it is some sort of abysmal failure. It is precisely the opposite. The reason that the levy income has gone down is that people are becoming less dependent on their cars and are finding other ways to get to work, including on the trams and better buses that were funded directly from the levy.

Then we heard from Mr Simpson an upside-down world version of that point: that councils might use the levy to fund transport projects that would worsen congestion. The pitch would be something along the lines of, “Pay your way to longer journey times, more air pollution and more congestion.” I do not see that getting on anyone’s council election leaflet.

Workplace parking levies are about investment in solving the chronic health, economic and environmental problems that we have in our cities, which are caused by congestion, air pollution and town centre decline. It would be wrong to hold back progress on the introduction of those levies where councils want them. We face a cost of living crisis, but people on the lowest incomes are the least likely to have access to a car, and many of those people are dependent on bus services.

Ending the cycle of decline of bus services in Scotland means making services more affordable, reliable and accessible, increasing passenger numbers and improving profitability so that routes can be restored. Nottingham used its levy income to invest heavily in bus and tram, reversing the decline and cutting 40 million car miles over the past 15 years.

Scotland needs to cut its carbon emissions by three quarters in just nine years. That is a sobering thought. If members did not want workplace parking levies in 2019 and want to delay them again now, they need to say what other form of demand management they will put in place. Right now, our climate targets are dead in the water unless we see a huge reduction in road traffic emissions. It is clear that business as usual will lead us down a road of no return. It is time to get behind workplace parking levies as a reasonable and democratically accountable measure for investing in the transport solutions that we all need.

In debates led by Mr Simpson, I am sometimes reminded of a much-loved 1970s television character. It is not Fred Flintstone but Mr Benn. In each episode, Mr Benn would choose to dress up as a different character and would then go on an amazing adventure in which he would learn about new things. So it is with Mr Simpson. One day, he is the Lycra-clad cycle activist convening the Parliament’s cross-party group on sustainable transport; the next day—as we hear today—he is Mondeo man railing against an imaginary war on the motorist. Then, another day, we get Councillor Simpson, the erstwhile defender of local government decision making and autonomy.

However, unlike Mr Benn, Mr Simpson and his colleagues cannot be all things to everyone. If someone supports the rights of cyclists, walkers and wheelers one day, they have to follow through and support policies that tackle congestion, invest in places and make streets safer. That is what workplace parking levies do.

If Mr Simpson champions local decision making, as he does from time to time, he must trust councils to make the judgment about whether workplace parking levies are right for their areas—or not, as the case may be.