³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Mr Sweeney makes a very good point. Too often, such changes are decided between public bodies such as Transport Scotland, councils and the police, and the public do not get to hear about any of it. It is worth highlighting that point to the lead committee.

I am quite astonished that the minister and her official have just confirmed that there is no limit whatever on what councils can charge for a licence. That will frighten the life out of businesses in Scotland.

Scottish Chambers of Commerce and Glasgow Chamber of Commerce—Glasgow is one of the cities in which the levy could be introduced—say that the levy should be scrapped or at least put on hold while we recover from the pandemic. Have you considered doing that, minister?

I am not scaremongering, and there is a difference between penalty charges—you are right to mention them, minister; I think that the maximum penalty charge for non-compliance is £5,000—and the licence charge, which is what I was asking about, and in relation to which you have confirmed that there is no upper limit. I will leave it there, convener.

I go back to the Nottingham scheme on a point of information. Just more than half of companies that are involved in the scheme pass on the charge to their employees—that is a fact. That goes back to the convener’s first question. However, my question is on something different. Minister, I cannot see anything in the regulations or the parent act that sets a limit on what councils can charge for a licence. Can you help me there?

I thought that it would be much safer to turn up in person than to rely on technology. For the new member of the committee, I note that, two weeks ago, I tried to make my pitch but my parliamentary Surface device decided to turn itself off as I was in mid-flow and about to get into the meat of the issue.

I will go over some old ground. In the previous parliamentary session, two cross-party groups covered work related to that of the proposed CPG on sustainable transport. There was a CPG on cycling, walking and buses, of which I was co-convener, and a separate CPG on rail, of which John Mason was co-convener.

In the previous session, a number of us who were involved in the two groups got together and thought that it might make sense to merge them into one group in the next session. Those talks have continued, and we decided that it made far more sense to have just one group.

As you will be aware, convener, part of the reason behind that is the problem—which we will probably face as we go through this parliamentary session—of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ attending CPGs. There is a rush of enthusiasm at the start, then numbers start to tail off. Perhaps that is an issue that the committee could monitor. That situation is not fair on the groups that turn up, particularly if it is an in-person meeting.

I turn to what the proposed CPG would intend to do. In the past, CPGs have tended to become talking shops, where people who agree with each other speak to one another They go away and everybody is happy but then nothing happens. To make it worth while, a CPG should actually do something—it should do some work, do research and produce reports. I want to be involved in the CPG on sustainable transport because everyone who is involved in it agrees with that.

We have a programme for the first year. If the establishment of the CPG is approved, the first piece of work would be to look at traffic reduction policy. Last week, the Scottish Government produced a paper spelling out how it would like to see car miles reduced over the next few years. We would drill down into that.

If our establishment is given approval this morning, the CPG will meet at lunchtime and we will have a presentation from Scottish Government officials and someone from Transport Scotland, to get that ball rolling. We would probably like to meet every month. We have quite a programme of work. We would seek to produce reports with recommendations.

We would look at traffic demand management and at how to get the modal shift so that people walk, cycle and use public transport more. I know that there is at least one committee member who has strong views on that. That issue is really important.

Whatever you think of cars, getting people more active is a positive thing. That is what the group will consider. It will also look at public transport. It is vital that we consider ways to help public transport to build back better, if I can borrow a phrase, and get more people on to buses and trains. The CPG will not be a talking shop; it will be a working group.

I am happy to take any questions.

Good.

That is a really good idea. Actually, as Jamie Halcro Johnston said earlier in the meeting, cross-party groups can work together, which has happened in the past. There is a big opportunity in that respect.

My door is always open to you, Mr Doris, and to any other member who wishes to pop in.

You are absolutely right. We need to cover all sectors of society, including people who are disabled, elderly people and young people. I am looking at the extensive list of organisations that we have, which is our initial group of members—more have wanted to join since that list was compiled—and I do not see any disability-specific groups.

That is encouraging. There are also groups in the list that speak up for disabled people even if they are not specifically disability groups.

If you look at the membership list, which you should have in front of you, you will see that the CPG is not just about cycling. As you know, Ms Webber, I am a cyclist but I am not a man in Lycra. I cannot achieve any great speed and cause alarm while I am cycling about.

The name of the CPG is sustainable transport, not cycling. We cover ferries, trains, buses, walking and cycling. It is not just about cycling.