³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is under consideration. As I outlined in my response to Mr Ruskell, a key part of the ICP will be the chapter on onward and connecting travel. We are looking for that to be completed internally in the first half of 2023, and there will then be stakeholder engagement.

Ms Dunbar is absolutely right that we need to ensure that there are more joined-up approaches to our broader transport network. There are already great examples of that in the transport network. I was in discussions with officials about that very point yesterday. In places such as Oban, for example, there is fantastic connectivity between ferry and rail, but that does not exist everywhere. We have that in other parts of the network, but we need to consider where we can build in opportunities to connect people’s journeys, because otherwise we are never going to facilitate the modal shift to get people out of their cars.

In response to Ms Lennon’s question about our net zero targets, we know that the transport sector is a significant contributor to our emissions, and we absolutely recognise the need to join things up better, whether that be through shared hubs or other approaches that exist in other parts of Scotland.

The committee will know well that not all island communities are the same. We need to be mindful in our policy development that they all have very different needs and that we should not try a one-size-fits-all policy, because that will not work.

CHFS3 also gives us an opportunity to do things differently, and there are definitely lessons that we will need to learn, particularly in relation to what CalMac has been able to come up with in quite recent times and how we will build things into the future contract.

That it is a fair question. Elise McIntyre will come in on the specifics, and I might speak about ministerial directions after that.

I take on board your point, convener; that is a vast area of Scotland. In the regulations, there is the power for local authorities to decide for themselves how to administer any hearings process; it is not for Government to dictate.

At this time, it is quite difficult for us to say what the future cost will be. Donald Morrison and I mentioned, I think in response to Ms Lennon’s question, that some local authorities are further down the road than others, while some are waiting and holding back their consultation and assessment processes until the regulations come into force. Therefore, we do not yet know where they are in their planning or what the associated costs with that would be.

We would certainly want to continue working with local authority partners. They have been part of the working group to develop the parking guidance for example. That has been pivotal. They have helped to shape and change the guidance as officials have worked with them during the past year and a bit.

We as a Government recognise the need to listen and respond to changes accordingly. I take Mr Kerr’s point seriously, because I recognise some of the financial challenges that local authorities and, it should be said, the Scottish Government face at this time.

We have provided funding of £2.4 million, and we will continue to work with local authority partners on those costs. However, at this time, it is not possible to give a quantifiable amount for each local authority, because some are further down the road with their assessments than others and others have yet to start the process and therefore will not have a cost associated with the work itself.

Yes.

I do not envisage there being multiple hearings, although that is a right that the local authority has through the regulations. Local authorities must also consult on any exemptions that they propose, which I discussed with my officials prior to the meeting. There is no statutory rate or level for the number of objections that might be received. Scottish ministers have the power to appoint a reporter and to conduct what would essentially be a hearing process. That would be a matter for the local authority to judge, because those are local roads. Local authorities should be trusted to do that and perhaps to measure where they see the greatest number of objections to a suggested exemption. If there are limited numbers of objections, we might expect them not to go down that route.

The legislation does not dictate the process to local authorities per se, but a hearing is an option that is open to local authorities. It is important that they get it right for local communities, because we do not want to see vast swathes of exemptions in relation to the legislation.

There is, yes.

Indeed.

The local authority would have to judge. If it had a certain number of objections in a certain area and identified that there was a real challenge, you would expect the local authority to respond accordingly. It is very dependent on the level of interest in the exemptions at local level. However, as I mentioned in response to Mr Ruskell, in terms of driving the behaviour change that we need to see, we do not want to see vast swathes of exemptions. The regulations give local authorities a power, but there is, nonetheless, still a national pavement parking ban.