Chamber and committees

The member is addressing one of the key points about exemptions, which local authorities could introduce. Local authorities that have big tourism and hospitality interests, such as Edinburgh, might want to consider that. There are very few industrial plants in the centre of cities. However, the member’s point about shift workers is well made, but he seems to be saying that the minister needs to make that decision. Why does Mr Simpson think that the local authorities in the cities that are seriously considering introducing a scheme do not have the capability to understand shift working and where the industrial estates are within their city centre boundaries? Why does he not trust those local authorities?

Is it just the timing that you have a problem with, or are you fundamentally opposed to the measure that was approved by the Parliament and enacted three years ago?

On timing, do you recognise the minister’s point that any scheme will not be implemented immediately? That will take time, and the minister said that it could be a number of years. Arguing about the situation now could prevent local authorities from doing anything for years to come.

Will you respond to those points, please?

Good morning. It would be helpful if the minister could clarify the difference between what is in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament some years ago, and the SSI that is before us. Clearly, if there were defects in the SSI, we would have been alerted to that. The main concern seems to be about timing. Have any technical aspects of the SSI been brought to the Government’s attention?

The instrument is primarily about the mechanism. Indeed, it specifies quite a lot of safeguards for communities in relation to the consultation process, the setting out of charges and the point about a reporter, which the minister referred to. Perhaps she could also expand on that a bit.

It is also important for us to have an indication of whether we expect every single local authority in Scotland to use the powers, or whether it will just be the local authorities in the two major cities, as was the case back in 2017, based on the manifestos of different parties in those two cities.

On consultation, as my constituency lies between Glasgow and Edinburgh, I am familiar with the issues for commuters who travel to Glasgow and Edinburgh. We now have city region deals, which have transport aspects, particularly for commuters, including park-and-ride schemes. Surely any consideration by the City of Edinburgh Council should consider the impact on Midlothian, East Lothian and West Lothian. The spend might be best placed in park-and-ride schemes on the outskirts of Edinburgh that connect to bus lanes into the city. Obviously, Edinburgh has a very good public transport system, although it could always be improved. The same applies in relation to going into Glasgow. I am campaigning for a park-and-ride scheme from Whitburn into both cities. Those are the types of things that people are looking for.

I ask the minister to expand on her thoughts and understanding in relation to some of those matters. I am happy for her to bring in her officials to differentiate between what is in the 2019 act and what is in the instrument. I am always open to SSIs being brought back but, unless something else has been brought to the minister’s attention, the key issue seems to be about timing.

I cannot tell whether an official wants to speak.

Can you confirm the discretionary nature of the powers and that two or more local authorities can choose to implement a joint workplace parking licensing scheme? We should also bear it in mind that a number of political parties advocated such a scheme for the city of Edinburgh, even though a lot of commuters come not from Edinburgh itself but from, for example, my constituency in West Lothian. What are the options for co-ordinating the revenue from the levy between two local authorities?

Good morning. There has been some criticism that planning policies relating to biodiversity are too aspirational. In the preparation of NPF4, a working group that looked at securing positive effects for biodiversity—I want to focus on biodiversity in particular—stated:

“supportive planning policy on biodiversity (and green infrastructure more generally) is not translating into delivery on the ground. Green infrastructure can be seen as optional or as an element that can be negotiated out”.

I want to go to Bruce Wilson first on this question, and then to Rosie Simpson. Does the draft NPF4 really deliver on the radical biodiversity change that the national spatial strategy set out in its introduction?

I will stick on that theme and reflect on what you have said about data in particular. I am very struck by the fact that, on a piece of land that is open for development for positive reasons—for renewables, for example—there will be a strong data-driven aspect to carbon reductions. We have heard that a piece of land might end up being double counted for different companies or organisations. We are concerned that, if that land were peatland, for example, perhaps the data would not be sufficient to look at issues around carbon-rich soils and other aspects, and that biodiversity can therefore be the poor relation in respect of quantification of the impact that any development might have.

Is there a possibility that NPF4 could enable that interchange? We have a twin biodiversity and climate change crisis. Surely there needs to be equal calibration and measurement on one piece of land with the two crises. Does the draft NPF4 do that? If it does not, what is needed to ensure that it can deliver for both crises?

I come to Bruce Wilson. How can policy 3 and policy 19 work together so that biodiversity is not seen as the poor relation because there is no data, for example?

Who will make that happen?

I ask Paul White the same question. Bus companies in particular have a keen interest in multimodal hubs. How do we make them happen? What has to happen and who is responsible?