Chamber and committees

That is very helpful. I am very grateful for that answer. I believe that other panel members might wish to come in, but I am not sure who.

The instrument makes provision for schemes to be examined by a reporter, but only if the council chooses, and it will be for the council to choose the scope of that examination. The reporter goes on to decide on the process and a timetable for it. Some might feel that that amounts to the council marking its own homework. Under what circumstances would a council be expected to go through that process? Is it the default position that a reporter would be involved? What issues would the reporter consider when deciding on the procedure to be followed at a public examination?

Thank you—that would be useful. You correctly anticipated my question about the timescale.

What consideration has the Scottish Government given to a situation in which a workplace is nowhere near public transport or in which, for example, shift workers cannot get home by public transport after a certain time? On a related note, what impact does the Scottish Government anticipate that such schemes would have on surrounding streets?

I have a question about coastal protection and resilience, which I will direct to Anna Beswick, but if any other panel members wish to come in, they should just indicate.

Policy 35 says that

“Local development plan spatial strategies should consider how to adapt coastlines to the impacts of climate change”

and that there is a need for

“a proactive and innovative approach”.

In your view, how well does NPF4 support the need for climate adaptation and coastal resilience? How proactive does it require stakeholders to be?

I do, convener, but it is for Dr Brown, so perhaps you could bring me in at the end, if she reconnects.

I want to pick up on the line of questioning that Mark Ruskell explored with Dr Brown. You talked about a lack of strategy in NPF4 and STPR2. We have heard quite a lot about the urban possibilities, but it is difficult to relate a lot of that to rural settings or areas where bus services perhaps cannot be run for financial reasons. That point is correctly set out in the CPT written submission.

The United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change says that we need 30,000 public electric vehicle chargers by 2030; we currently have about 2,500. To go back to your comments about the lack of strategy, does NPF4 sufficiently account for roll-out of EV chargers and can it facilitate the extent of roll-out that we need?

Thank you. I have one final question, minister, on measurement. The stated aims of the policy, which you alluded to earlier, include reducing car use and increasing use of public transport. How does the Scottish Government intend to formally measure what is happening in order to establish whether the implementation of a workplace parking levy has caused the aims to be achieved—in other words, that there is causation rather than simply correlation? Also, to go back to the convener’s point, how does the Scottish Government intend to measure whether, if employers pass the cost on to employees, we are not simply forcing the lower-paid members of a company on to public transport while the higher-paid members avail themselves of the parking spaces?

I have no further questions, convener.

No—that was an interesting answer. Local authorities face severe funding challenges, and you say that

“there must be an understanding that any bus route new or existing will receive on-going public sector funding”.

Has central Government sufficiently recognised that in NPF4 or more widely, in order to meet the aims that we all want to achieve, and which you pointed out?

I am very grateful for that answer. Your last point might be the key one. I have in mind the situation in Montrose in my region, which I have been very active—along with colleagues across the parties—in trying to address.

That leads on to a similar point. Several witnesses have talked about the current burdens on local authorities. As Bruce Wilson pointed out, that is in a context of major budget cuts and funding pressures. In your view, given what you have said about the need to proactively address the issue, is NPF4 sufficiently cognisant of the ability of local government, financially and resource-wise, to mitigate what is happening in Montrose and elsewhere? Does it need to be stronger in mandating central Government to provide the resources and the financing?