Chamber and committees

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.

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.