There are a number of things to say on that. I think that the committee has looked at clean air enforcement issues more generally and has reflected on the fact that local authorities use their discretion. In some circumstances, however, they have taken a stronger enforcement line when they have been trying to persuade people to understand the issue.

It is clear that local authorities have powers in this area. Normally, the Government gets criticised for being overzealous in telling local authorities what to do, but this is an issue on which we have to respect local authorities, who know their communities, their towns and their areas, and so they know the level of enforcement that they want to carry out. That is why they have discretion in the extent to which they carry out that enforcement. We are giving them the powers to enable that, and the penalties will be, we hope, a diversionary implement.

The use of “teachable moments”—if that is the term that you used—is really important. We all know that there are many behaviours in relation to cars—such as not wearing seat belts and drink driving—that, over many years, have changed in line with changes in what is acceptable. In recent years, coming through the pandemic, people have walked their streets more, they own their places more and they want to be able to do that in comfort. All of us who have children have probably been in a situation with pavement parking—I was reflecting that I had two children in a double buggy. The most frustrating thing when someone is pavement parking is that they are, by and large, forcing women with young children on to the streets. We are saying, “Do you know that that isn’t acceptable? Why don’t we just agree that we don’t do that?” There is a behavioural aspect, which is why there will be a marketing campaign to persuade people to change that behaviour.

On enforcement, local authorities have the tools, they have the legislation and they now have the opportunity to use penalty notices as well. We are providing the tools so that, if they want to use the stick, they can. However, why do we, as a country, not just say, “Let’s stop pavement parking and allow people to use the pavements with freedom”? Whether we are talking about people with guide dogs or in wheelchairs, elderly people walking their dogs in narrow spaces or parents or grandparents with buggies, we should let people use the pavements.

We have some estimates, but again we are working with SCOTS—that is, the transportation officers—and with local authorities on what they think that they will need. Obviously, it is part of the on-going discussion that we are having with COSLA and local authorities.

That is an important point. Again, it is a decision to be made by local authorities, but local authorities should be informed by local communities. The continuous dialogue that is helping to inform the guidance on parking standards will come out at the same time as we commence the regulations, should they be agreed to when the committee and the Parliament vote.

On the responsibility of individuals, councillors will no doubt be approached by people who have individual circumstances. They can take that up with the local authority. Similarly, MSPs will no doubt be contacted. Local authorities increasingly have access panels of the type that the member spoke about, and the Government consults the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland to get its advice. That is proper and responsible community engagement. Any individual issue can be addressed with representation, but I cannot make local authorities do that; they have to do it themselves.

I thank the committee for its questions and contributions, and I hope that there is support for this important final part of the regulations.

Perhaps I can answer that, because I asked quite a similar question. There are many important provisions within the 2019 act, so we must ensure that they can come into force.

The act became legislation around the end of 2019. Not long after that, we headed into the pandemic and people working right across Government were diverted from legislative and other policy work into managing the pandemic. Understandably, the provisions, including any corrections, were delayed. A number of provisions are now in process and instruments have already been laid that will help us to implement the powers that are within the 2019 act.

That would best be answered by officials, if they have the information, because, as you will know, I was not the minister at the time at which those errors happened. I am happy to take responsibility for tidying up the legislation in a technical way. I ask Kevin Gibson to come in.

Good morning, convener and committee. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was designed to make Scotland’s transport network cleaner, smarter and more accessible than ever before. During stages 2 and 3 of the parliamentary passage of the bill that became the 2019 act, a significant number of amendments were made. For context, the convener may recall that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee considered more than 400 amendments at stage 2 and that the consideration of amendments at stage 3 lasted for around seven hours. That included amendments to provisions that amended existing primary legislation and the introduction of new provisions to which cross-references were made.

As a consequence, the bill as passed contained a significant number of provisions that required to be renumbered and cross-references that had to be corrected before its publication. When that exercise was undertaken, a substantial number of cross-references and other numbering errors were corrected in a short timescale, prior to the publication of the act. However, in a few cases, unfortunately, cross-references were not updated.

The primary purpose of the regulations, therefore, is to correct those erroneous cross-references and the incorrect numbering in the act’s provisions on bus services and smart ticketing. The regulations also remove duplicate provision on the parliamentary procedure that attaches to regulations under the act.

We are also using the opportunity to correct one minor drafting error in section 55 of the act—on parking prohibitions—to ensure that the effect of that provision is clear.

The regulations make relatively minor technical amendments to the act, to ensure that full effect is given to the Parliament’s intention in passing it. I am happy to answer any questions that members may have.

If you are happy for me to do so, I am happy just to move the motion.

I am happy to forgo summing up.

Motion agreed to.

In terms of how we would normally operate and, to be fair, as was set out in the evidence sessions, the Scottish Government has been as accessible and approachable to interests as it can be, but in an appropriate way as long as things are documented. Clearly, the meeting was documented but not in the form that it would currently be done, which would be an official minute.