Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is particularly true with areas such as monitoring and evaluation of projects, and trying to share the understanding of how to do that.

I have a final question, which is a bigger one. The Government has a wellbeing economy bill slated to be introduced in this session of Parliament. Do you have any thoughts about that higher level of governance in Scotland and what could be in that bill to support the sort of initiatives that we are talking about? Is it about having the right kind of indicator? Is it about having a commissioner who can look at the needs of future generations? What would be useful to have at a legislative level to help to drive progress in the area and ensure that we do not forget about this work but prioritise it?

Do not worry if you do not have an answer, because there is time for you to feed into the Government consultations, but I am interested to know whether you have any top lines.

To put it simply, the issue is how we utilise the resources and the advantages that we have with energy in Scotland to maximise the opportunities for green investment here and create a focus under a green taxonomy. Does the potential exist for there to be a divergence or a particular emphasis in Scotland under a green investment taxonomy in the UK?

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?

Mr Kerr needs to understand that workplace parking levies raise millions and millions of pounds for investment in the alternatives that get people out of cars. Regardless of whether the charges are passed on to specific groups, the benefits still exist—we still get a better public transport system, with more alternatives so that people can leave their cars at home. That is what has happened in Nottingham. The same can happen in Edinburgh and Glasgow, so let us get on with it.

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.

If the member wants a deposit return scheme to be delivered faster, why did he and his party vote against it several years ago? Why did he vote for a delay in the introduction of the deposit return scheme back then? Why has he changed his position?

I will do my best, convener. I appreciate that we are going back to a lot of the fundamental arguments of the scheme that were debated back in 2019, but where will the funding go? Will it be in addition to the funding that councils have already allocated to public transport schemes to make people’s journeys to work easier? Some people will look at this and think, “I might have to pay more money to get to work. How will my travel to work be easier as a result?”

I can see concrete additional benefits such as the acceleration of existing programmes and schemes that councils are considering or bringing in new initiatives such as park and rides or better public transport facilities to make it easier for people, rather than having people think, “This is just another tax that I will have to pay.”