Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are getting hung up on the word “modelling”. This is not a simple input-output spreadsheet, in which one puts the cost of WPL in and then gets a kind of output from it. All councils need to consider the experience of places where workplace parking levies have been introduced and need to have detailed discussions with employers that operate in their areas, and with communities, about how the scheme might work.

It is only through doing that work that we will understand the aspirations of employers and whether they might wish to move back to city centre locations that would benefit the local economy and might have lower numbers of parking spaces. We will not put all that data into a spreadsheet and suddenly get an answer. The process requires that discussion with individual employers—that local democratic process—to work out how a workplace parking levy could be introduced.

We have good evidence from places where the scheme has been introduced in England. The quicker we can introduce WPL in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the quicker we will have a solid base of evidence to empower other local authorities and decide whether the scheme is the right thing for them. We can only get to the end of the process by learning through doing and implementing the workplace parking levy on the ground.

I come back to what has changed since 2019. The climate emergency has accelerated, and we in the committee all know how hard it is to bring down transport emissions. The low-hanging fruit is gone; we have to make decisions. The Parliament decided in 2019 to put the levy in as an option for local authorities to deliver.

We also know that congestion is not coming down in our cities, which is damaging not just to our health but to our economy. Seven billion pounds were lost to the UK economy this past year through congestion, which does not benefit anybody—neither the businesses that have concerns about the workplace parking levy, nor any part of our economy or society.

Monica Lennon talks about the decline of bus services. We share some concerns in that area. I see the scheme as a way of investing additional resources and funding to give everybody a much better alternative to the car. That process needs work, and the existing programmes of local councils will not be enough to meet the 20 per cent vehicle reduction—

Yes, if I have time.

I need to make a bit of progress, Mr Simpson.

The purpose of the local transport strategies, which will have to link into the national transport strategy, will be to drive down congestion to meet the 20 per cent vehicle mileage reduction target. The investments that WPL will be used to fund have to be able to meet that target and work with that direction of travel. It is not a money-making scheme, Mr Simpson. It is a tramline-building scheme. It is a cycle lane-building scheme. It is a bus priority lane-building scheme. That is what WPL is for. It is about investing in the future, and it is high time that we got on and delivered it.

I really fear that this debate has been a complete waste of time. I totally respect that Graham Simpson has an ideological opposition to the workplace parking levy. He is entitled to have that, and he was entitled to challenge the provision of the workplace parking levy in the 2019 act—I cannot remember if he did, but the Tories certainly tried to get it struck down during the passage of the bill. However, we are beyond that point now, and the motion that he has moved today will not remove that provision from the statute book. If he wants to remove it from law, he is more than welcome to bring forward a member’s bill and make the issue a defining campaign of this parliamentary session, but his motion to annul will not do that.

It is telling that a similar provision remains in UK law. Some councils have made use of it and others have chosen not to, but there has been no attempt by the UK Government to remove it. If Mr Simpson wants to remove the provision from Scots law, he is more than welcome to try to do that, but that is not the effect of his motion—it might be his intention, but it is not the effect.

I know that, after the passage of the 2019 act, virtually all local authorities in Scotland had detailed discussions about whether they wanted to introduce the levy—I remember engaging in those discussions with local authorities in my region. Some of the councils that were more rural in nature discussed the issue with local businesses and major employers in their towns and cities and decided that either the time was not yet right or that it was not a provision that they wanted to pursue. We need to empower local authorities and trust them to make those decisions. Jackie Dunbar made the key point: we need to ensure that that discussion happens locally, and the decision about whether to push forward with the levy should be taken at that level.

What has changed since 2019? Well, we have a climate emergency—

Thanks for that further reassurance. My other point is about something that was in your letter to the committee. You made the point that we might see employers starting to shift away from out-of-town locations and back into city centres. It is clear that our city centres have been gutted because of Covid and the economic downturn, which have also affected small businesses. Is there evidence for that? Are there promising signs from Nottingham or other places that our town centres might be revitalised as a result of the workplace parking levy? That would benefit everybody, particularly small businesses. Would that add another lever to encourage the regeneration of our high streets that we desperately need?

It can. I share your concerns—I had a similar issue with the X53 bus, which I brought to a members’ debate. There has been a lack of transparency from the companies about why they are pulling certain services, and Covid has had an impact on that situation as well. It comes down to the imagination of councils to devise local transport strategies that put in place local bus partnerships, which could include municipal bus companies, that ensure that we can make services viable. If that work were part of a local transport strategy, I do not see why we could not see additional investment—I stress the word “additional”—in those kind of initiatives, under the legislation.

It is for us to push the boundaries, use WPL to incentivise investment in public transport services and ensure that those services are in place when WPL is rolled out. The case is stronger now, particularly given the cost of living crisis, for bringing in a measure that can drive that investment and give ordinary families the public transport systems that they deserve and need.

I take exception to what Mr Simpson is saying. I do not think that we will see councils spending workplace parking levy income on building motorways. That is not what the levy is for. It is an anti-congestion measure, and a measure for investment in the alternatives that people desperately need. It would be bizarre for councils—

I thank Jim Fairlie for securing today’s timely members’ business debate.

We have heard that, in the recent round of job losses, OVO Energy announced that it will axe 1,700 jobs across its UK operations. That is a quarter of the company’s workforce. It will mean closing seven out of 10 offices. An estimated 700 staff are at risk in Perth alone, and a quarter of those staff are earmarked for OVO’s voluntary redundancy scheme. Those are the numbers. Behind the numbers are real people and families, who have ties to their communities, with children at school, friends and neighbours, and families that support and care for one another in the community.

Jim Fairlie spelled out how the roots of the energy business in Perth run deep—all the way back to SSE and the hydro board—and are built on the lives of generations of real people. The workers should not be seen as mere numbers on a spreadsheet to be redeployed at will across the UK.

After several meetings with the chief executive of OVO and contact with the unions, I, like many members, remain deeply concerned about the lack of clarity on the next steps in the redeployment and retraining that are to be offered to staff and on whether compulsory redundancies could still be considered after the voluntary redundancy process concludes. Once again, OVO has left its staff in the dark, without clarity on the next steps, putting them under pressure to make serious decisions about the future of their careers and families in a matter of days.

The deadline for voluntary redundancy applications closed in record time, after just around a fortnight, and the lack of meaningful support for workers was such that it is no wonder that OVO’s initial trawl did not secure the required number of voluntary redundancies in all areas of its business. Despite OVO’s new-found confidence that it will reach its target for voluntary redundancies after an extension, when I met Adrian Letts just yesterday, OVO was still refusing to rule out compulsory redundancies. The lack of transparency in that regard instils fear that the impact of the job losses and office closures that have been announced might be only the tip of the iceberg. Hard-working staff at OVO deserve much better. They deserve much more than a situation in which they are levered and coerced into making life-changing decisions in just a matter of days.

Of course, this is not the first time that OVO has broken promises to staff and contravened the Government’s fair work agenda. This is the latest in a series of broken promises from OVO to its hard-working staff. Let us remember, as other members have noted, that this is the company that promised job security when it took over in January 2020, only to lay off thousands of workers at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic in May 2020.

We cannot allow companies such as OVO repeatedly to disregard basic fair work principles. It is high time that OVO took those principles seriously. I ask the minister to consider what sanctions can be applied to companies that undermine and break the fair work principles, and I agree with Alex Rowley that not a penny more of taxpayers’ money needs to go to such companies.

We need transparency and a commitment to no compulsory redundancies. We need a longer period for voluntary redundancies, matched with a package of support for people who are looking to retrain and upskill in other areas of the company. Instead, OVO’s response so far has left its workforce in a catch-22 situation in which workers must choose between applying for voluntary redundancy, even if they are interested in upskilling, or facing the risk of compulsory redundancy.

Several weeks ago, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, Ivan McKee, promised that he would consider how the Tay cities deal could provide further support for those who are affected by OVO’s plans, in the same way that support was provided for workers after Michelin closed its doors in Dundee. I would like Tom Arthur, in closing the debate, to report back on what those options might be.

If OVO cares at all about its employees and its reputation, it must now work hard to change the course of its actions, to offer meaningful support to its workforce and to work with those workers to develop the business to meet customer needs.

The Greens strongly agree with the minister that a people’s ScotRail must be rooted in the experiences of passengers and of course the dedicated women and men who work on our railways. Just last week, damaging timetable changes in Perth and Fife were scrapped by ScotRail after hundreds of my constituents campaigned for change. How can we harness the energy and enthusiasm of those passengers to help to co-design services now and in the future to meet their needs and to increase patronage?

My final question is about delivery and the mechanisms that we have for that. My local authority in Stirling has a plan for what it wants to deliver but it is taking a long time to roll it out. Some of that is down to traffic regulation orders and the traffic system. Are there particular barriers that you would point to that could brush up against the ambition of NPF4? I put that to Chiquita Elvin, who is directly involved in rolling out the tarmac, on the ground.