 R recyf. Welcome to the 28th meeting of 2015. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phone and other electronic equipment. As they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members will refer to tablets during the course of the meeting because we provide meeting papers in digital format. We have apologies this morning from Willy Cofi and I welcome Stewart Stevenson, who is attending in his role as committee substitute. welcom Sandra White MSP, member in charge of a draft bill that we will deal with later. Our first agenda item is to consider the following negative statutory instrument. That is the energy performance of building Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-386. Members will see from the clerk's note that this instrument is to facilitate wider access to energy performance data. This legislation will not introduce new policy nor leads to any new costs. Members will note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee had no comment to make in relation to this instrument. Do members have any comments? As the committee can tend to agree, it has no recommendations to make to Parliament in relation to this instrument. We now move on to agenda item 2. It is evidence sessions on the Footway Parking and Double Parking Scotland Bill. We have two panels giving evidence. The first will be the Minister for Transport and Islands and the second will be Sandra White, the member in charge of the bill. For the first panel, I introduce Derek Mackay, Minister for Transport and the Islands, and Sharon Wood, policy officer, asset management, finance and technical branch, Transport Scotland, Scottish Government. Mr Mackay, do you wish to make an opening statement, please? I do. First of all, I can report that we are working on a shorter title for Sharon Wood as well. That is the evidence for the committee this morning. Thank you for the invitation to give evidence on the Footway Parking and Double Parking Scotland Bill. Sandra White is undertaking commendable work to develop this bill in a subject area, which we all acknowledge is complicated. Parking is subject to various acts and regulations. The member's bill seeks to introduce clear prohibitions, while allowing for various qualifications and exceptions. Removing obstructions from our pavements to assist vulnerable groups sits well with our key strategic transport policy of improving quality, accessibility and affordability to transport. However, the Presiding Officer issued a statement explaining that, in her view, the bill is outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That statement raised significant doubt as to whether any act flowing from the bill would be fully within the legislative competence of the Parliament. We will also have heard from local authorities about their concerns and operational issues, in particular enforcement. At present, only 14 out of 32 local authorities have decriminalised parking enforcement powers following the removal of traffic wardens in February 2014 from those areas. In non-DPE areas, Police Scotland would still be responsible for enforcing the powers of the bill as part of its wider traffic offences enforcement. I am aware that a number of local authorities are considering the introduction of DPE, and my officials will work closely with those local authorities in the development of their applications. You have also heard from some members of the public who have questioned the impact of the bill on roads in built-up areas. Some roads, particularly in the built-up areas, do not necessarily have the space to accommodate the footway parking proposals, with residents potentially required to park cars some distance from their homes and possibly displacing other vehicles in turn. That could give rise to some challenging traffic management issues for road authorities. It is also important that we sensitively acknowledge the town regeneration policies in place so as not to discourage people from shopping in their local towns due to unduly restrictive parking requirements. Overall, new legislation in this area needs to be aimed at both achieving the aims and view and enabling Scotland's roads to continue to function effectively. Having considered the matter fully, I want to advise the committee that the Scottish Government supports the general principles of this bill, which align with our strategic transport policy. I want to make it clear that, should the Parliament agree the general principles of the bill at stage 1, the Scottish Government is of the view that no further action should be taken by the Parliament on the bill until the legislative competence issues are resolved. Following agreement with the UK Government, we are working to resolve the issues via the Scotland Bill. The intention is to introduce suitable exceptions to the list of reserved matters in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to remove any doubt about legislative competence in this area. The precise form of the amendments that are required remains under discussion with the UK Government, but it is extremely unlikely that any legislative competence alterations will be enforced before the Scottish Parliament is dissolved in March 2016. Therefore, it is my strong preference that, whilst we work to resolve the legislative competence issues, the focus should now shift to the development of a bill to be taken forward by the Scottish Government in the next parliamentary session once the issue of legislative competence has been resolved. Of course, convener, I will move more quickly if the parliamentary authorities and timetable allows, but that is the timescale that we appear to be working to. In conclusion, we are supportive of the general principles of the bill, but I am of the view that until legislative competence is resolved, no further action should be taken by the Parliament on the bill. Given the anticipated timescales for that, I believe that the most appropriate way forward is for the Scottish Government to progress a bill in the next parliamentary session, but, for the time being, we continue to support Sandra White's bill. Is the lack of legislative competence in this area the reason why there is no Scottish Government memorandum on the member's bill? There should be a memo, which should have been circulated. The memorandum will be issued after this committee debate. We had to get clearance of all the comments that were in the memorandum. Is not particularly useful for this committee minister? Normally, we would have the memorandum before this, but I wonder why we have had this delay. Is that down to the legislative competence issues? Can I explore that and come back to you, convener? I was not aware that you were in possession of a memo that I have cleared. I would be extremely grateful if you could, minister, because it is always concerning when a committee does not have the details at hand. Can I take you back, minister, because you said that the Government is supportive of the general principles of the bill. Does that mean that the Government wants to see this bill go through the stage 1 process, even though it may not be complete by the end of this Parliament because we will not have the legislative competences? That is broadly correct. It is important for Parliament to express a view. The Government is very interested in the views of the committee. We are supportive of Sandra White in progressing the bill because it has important principles that many members have tried to take forward. Government is keen to progress this. If it were to progress now, the Government would seek to amend the bill to make improvements. That would be done through stage 2 to stage 3. As it happens, we do not think that it will make that progress because of the legislative competence issues, but we are supportive of the principles of the bill. Politically, if the Parliament through committee shows support for the bill to a stage 1 debate, I think that that lines up the debate well for whoever may happen to be in government or indeed in the next Parliament to know that this is an important matter that should be taken forward. We are supportive of the principles, but we would do further work at stage 2 if it was to reach stage 2, but we are being quite open as a Government that we do not think that it will be able to make that progress because of the legislative competence issues. We can only go as fast now as the Westminster parliamentary process will allow. Does that help, convener? It helps a lot. By moving to stage 1 in this place, it may put pressure on the others to ensure that the legislative competence has come here so that we can deal with this issue. As you have rightly pointed out, the bill has come before the Parliament and a number of different guys has been put forward by a number of different members. Obviously, there are folk out there who have concerns that we have not been able to move on those issues. That is right, convener. As you know, the Government does not share the detail of legal opinion, but because there was doubt around the legal competence of the bill and that the Presiding Officer has set out a position, there has been doubt. I have been clear since being the transport minister of around a year now that we would work with the UK Government to resolve that. The UK Government has suggested a way forward through the Scotland Bill. There was a potential of a section 30 order that we were open minded. We could go as fast as the legislative programme would allow once we approve stage 1. If there is a great deal of political censors across the parties about that, it would add pressure to the UK Government to legislate. Even if they do it in the fashion that they have suggested, because of the debate that will be had and then commencement, it looks as if that work would happen after the current Parliament is dissolved and commenced by this summer. If they move more quickly, we can respond more quickly. Officials have been in dialogue, but I have confirmed with the Secretary of State that we are content with the approach that he will take to remove all doubt about legislative competence. Recognising that the Presiding Officer's statement that the bill has laid is not within the powers of the Parliament, it may be worth noting that there is no way in which the Presiding Officer can give a further opinion in the processes of the Parliament, neither in circumstances where something was competent initially but was amended at stage 2 or 3 to be not competent, nor in this case if it were to be amended to become competent. In the light of that absence of revisiting the Presiding Officer's decision, has the Government a view as to how Parliament might be informed as to whether an amended bill was subsequently competent or not? That is quite independent of whether the powers become available or not. The issue of competence and Parliament having a view on that would remain. I think that I have set out a course of action that helps to address the legal issues. Of course, if we ask two or three lawyers for opinion, you will probably get at least two or three different opinions, and not all legal opinion is consistent on this subject, it is fair to say. For the avoidance of doubt, because we are talking about issues of fines, financial penalties potentially, a criminality potentially, I think that it is quite important that all doubt is removed. Opinion can be offered, but I think that the clearest way to progress is to have absolute legislative competence beyond all doubt, and therefore we can proceed and the UK Government, Scottish Parliament and the same place on this issue. That would resolve any concerns that the Presiding Officer may have. Again, I am sure that your legal advisers are better placed than me, but it is perfectly competent to have this debate and for it to make progress through Parliament. Ultimately, I do not think that it could be satisfactory concluded through the legislative process without having that clarity. Convener, can I re-emphasise the point? This is the first time that it has been said publicly that I am giving a commitment from this Government that if we are re-elected, we will legislate on this area, but what I am also doing is working on the cross-party basis to flag up to everyone that I think that if we have got consensus in Parliament, any incoming Government may wish to legislate in this area. That is why this stage 1 debate and the committee's work is very important. Even if we cannot proceed, I think that it is lining up the debate very well for early legislation in the next Parliament. Sandra, on the legislative competence issue, I will take you in just now. Thank you very much. Just to pick up on what the minister has said, within the group that I was talking to, we commissioned two legal advice from two different legal firms. They came back and said that we had the competence in the Parliament and that I proceeded in that manner. It was a bit of a blow to get the letter from the Presiding Officer, but I was informed that there could be a challenge if it was not seen really competent by the Parliament's lawyers. We did have two pieces of separate legal advice that said that it was competent. Does anybody else want to come in on legislative competence at this moment in time? No? John Wilson, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. I want to try to move this on a bit and debate the bill that was presented. During the evidence session last week, we heard evidence from a representative of South Lanarkshire Council who implied that the current legislation that is in place could deal with many of the issues that the bill tries to cover. What would be your opinion on that view, minister? Let me be frank. It depends who you speak to. Some police officers would say it's an offence, some would say it's not worth pursuing. Police Scotland has a position that elements can be enforced. For example, it's already illegal to drive on the footway, not necessarily to park on the footway, but how does the vehicle get there if it's not to drive on the footway? I think that our areas may require clarification. If we are clear in the bill about what we are talking about, I think that it resolves it. There are matters of opinion and doubt, and that would help to clarify that. Also, the issue around some matters of legislation resting with Westminster and some sitting more comfortably with the Scottish Parliament, of course, where we would like all relevant legislation to sit. Sometimes it's a matter of opinion. Not all of that is totally resolved through the proposed legislation because there will still be exemptions and there will still be reasonableness being deployed, but that's appropriate because some of that is quite subjective. I think that it will give us legislative clarity that certain things are unacceptable around the provisions of parking and drop kerbs or double parking, and how parking on the footway is prohibited. We will also need to be very clear about definitions as well, because people's understanding of the carriageway might be different from the footway or the pavement and all the other definitions. The answer to Mr Wilson's question is that it brings more clarity to what is already a complex area. The evidence that we heard from Police Scotland last week compounded the problem by the description of where the police would enforce parking regulations and the series of hoops that they would have to go through to get there to have a prosecution. As I said, the witness from South Lanarkshire Council said that they introduced three notices and that they were able to take action almost immediately once they had actually introduced those. It's really trying to look at, and I welcome to you to admit that there is some legislation in place, it's about the interpretation of the current legislation and how we use that current legislation. Surely that could help to resolve many of the issues that are identified in the bill without going for additional legislation? I think that legislation and more focused legislation, as I indicated earlier, I would want to refine some of the language in the bill if it was to proceed, will bring greater clarity. In any event, we would intend to bring forward guidance to assist anyway. To progress this, I want to do more work with local authorities. I covered in my opening statement the issue around decriminalised parking, so I think that we have to address the issue of consistency across the country, enforceability and workability, and I would commission more work around that. In the member's bill, it also covers the issue of commencement period and a run-in time as well. I think that there are issues of operation that would have to be addressed, and some of that would be covered by guidance. Although there are local variations and local exemptions, I think that we need to do more work with local authorities and Police Scotland on the subject before it was implemented, but I think that we are some way off from that. I welcome the indication that you would want to issue guidance to local authorities. One example that I used last week is when you have two local authority towns almost sitting side-by-side, say, in my area, Motherwell and Hamilton. In terms of North Lanarkshire, they do not have any traffic wardens. In South Lanarkshire, they do have traffic wardens, so in relation to the implementation of any legislation or any guidance that is issued by the Scottish Government, how would you ensure that that was being dealt with across the board equally? At the present moment, we have traffic wardens in one authority, none in the other, but some day driving five minutes down the road could find themselves in a different regime in relation to parking. Indeed, that is more for the member in charge to consider as part of the current bill. What I am saying is that there would have to be a degree of standardisation of message, because there needs to be an educational campaign and clarity around guidance, so that it can be properly enforced. How it is enforced across the country will differ because of decriminalised parking in some areas, police action in other areas, and the level of priority that may be attached by a local authority will depend from one to another. I think that there are a lot of issues around the variability of it. Then, of course, we come to the issue of whether streets are all different, two streets exactly the same in Scotland, probably not, the size of the footway, the carriageway and what is appropriate, what is reasonable. I think that there is a lot in how any legislation would be deployed. That needs further consideration before adequate guidance could be published, and that would be based on definition. A degree of variation would be acceptable in applying the legislation to the most local level, but it also has to be a degree of consistency and fairness. That is around reasonableness. To assess the public arguably, there would need to be signage or some other indication of where the law is enforced. Again, that requires further consideration as to how it would work. As I say again, if the bill was to proceed or if the Government was to legislate, I would need to do further work through officials with COSLA and other local authorities to ensure that it is workable across the country. What I am keen to express at the moment is that, in principle, I believe that legislation is required. During the All-Eleven, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland argued that a definition of all roads with a speed limit of 30 miles an hour or less will be more appropriate. That is to say that we should not have the A and B roads to be excluded. What is your opinion on that? Why would they be excluded, A and B roads? I am afraid that that is a matter for the member in charge. As I say, I am happy to look at the detail as it progresses. It is primarily a local matter for local roads. That mainly affects and Sandra White can explain her intent further, but mainly affects residential and local areas more than, for example, strategic roads. I do not want to get into that definition other than the broad support, but I think that the consultation has more responses on most members' bill, which is a good and healthy sign, and various opinions are expressed. That definition would be a matter for the member in charge, and I am happy to return to it. That is more so a local roads issue rather than strategic. I do not want to get into definitions at this stage. Stewart Stevenson, please. The minister may have called the feet from me, because I was going to ask him about some of the definitions. I think that there are some areas where I am not clear what is meant, for example. I will ask the member in charge if I am permitted to do so. I am not unclear as to what a vehicle is, for example, which is referred to in section 21. The definitions provided in the interpretation only refer to a motor vehicle in section 136 of the 1984 Road Traffic Act. I am not clear if they are the same thing or not. I will just give the three. I am also not clear what parking is. There is no clear definition and there is nothing referring across, and I am unclear what stopping is. The stopping one is important, because vehicles in moving traffic in congested areas will be stopping and starting all the time. It is clear that one type of stopping is not going to be prohibited, but other types of stopping might not be. I wonder if the Government were to pick that up whether they would agree that those are perhaps three, if not all, the areas of definition that further consideration might have to be given to. Minister, I agree with the point and with the best will in the world how people have written up notes and lobbying positions and correspondence and common understanding of much of the definition varies. If we were to proceed, we need a common understanding of all the definitions for the reason that members have given. I alluded to that in my statement and other comments. If we were to proceed, we would want a common understanding of definitions. I am sure that solicitors would all work together to give us that common understanding and then we can stick to it. As I said, I am very mindful of my time of being a councillor, like many members of the committee. We know the difference between a footway and a roadway as it relates to the overall pavement, but that is not necessarily consistently understood by all the other definitions. It is very important for the enforceability of the legislation and that is something that I would want to refine further if it were to progress. Matters for the member in charge, but I am certainly comfortable with the principle of what we are trying to achieve. Just for the record, within motor vehicle definition, I have a wee issue about pedestrian-controlled motor vehicles, in particular street-craning equipment, as to whether that would be allowed to be parked or not, and even non-motor vehicles, such as in particular four-wheeled wheelbarrows, which have no motor. I think that there is always a series of issues. On that point, convener, at this stage in a debate, I do not want to get into a discussion with all people, particularly with Mr Stevenson, on technical definitions of each element of the bill. If it is of assistance, we could produce a list of definitions as they relate to the bill, if that would assist the committee, and maybe that would be the basis for consistency. Members are absolutely right. You have to be clear on what we are legislating for and be consistent on that. We are always glad to have Mr Stevenson. Some would call it pedantry, but I would say that attention to detail at the committee. I am just interested more in the Scottish Government's view on the balance that needs to be struck between the rights of pedestrians, the rights of motorists and the rights of car owners. We had a lot of discussion in the committee last week about the provision of alternative parking for car owners who live or work in areas that are affected by the bill. I am thinking of people who live in possibly council or new-build estates where there is no parking at all or driveways that simply are not big enough and residents have no option to park in the pavement. What is the Government's view on that situation? I do not have a specified formula other than to point to the designing streets policy, which is a very good planning policy that I was more familiar with when I was the local government planning minister. In new builds, there is a specified design that is more about good design. There is not a magic formula that says how close should your home get to park, but the member is absolutely right around the balancing act. It is about being reasonable. If you take a lay person's point of view, is it reasonable for someone to totally park on the footway, totally block that for other pedestrians, wheelchair users or anyone else? No, it is not. It is hard to find an excuse for someone to do that, particularly for convenience to their own domestic property. It is a balancing act and much of that would come out in guidance. If there was prohibition and exemptions, it would specify what areas are acceptable and what areas are not. To get the balance right that Kara Hilton was touching upon, it will be about a balance. Every street is different and therefore there has to be that reasonable approach. In some cases, it will be obvious if parking on the foot was totally inappropriate and the type of parking would be inappropriate as well if it is blocked, pedestrian and accessible access as well. While acknowledging the point that some parts of the country are impossible to have alternative parking provision and displacement in itself might compound other problems, it is about balance. While accepting that point, there is a clear message around those who choose to indiscriminately park in an unreasonable way to the extent that is blocking the access of people who should have the right to walk along their footway. Does that assist? Yes, that is very helpful. Anything else, Kara? No, I am pleased that the minister alluded to the design and street strategy that we picked on last week. Will the minister agree that more needs to be done at the planning stage to build in that type of thing into housing developments? That advice is in place, but when I live in a new-build development, myself and simply, there is no parking and that is replicated right across the country. Do you agree that more action needs to be taken to build it in at the planning stage? Well, I do and it was fine when I left it as a planning minister and I do not know what has happened since, frankly. Do not report that back to Mr Neil, who is probably watching. At the moment, such policies are a material consideration in the planning system and that is as it should be and, of course, accessibility, active travel and pedestrian priority in the hierarchical principles and priorities that we would encourage. In a new-build, we have to be very mindful of that. It is very hard to retrofit existing communities with those new policies, but we still have to get the balance right, because it is impacting on the accessibility. Before we move off of that point, minister, are you aware and know that it is not in your portfolio, but are you aware whether or not the planning review panel is looking at issues such as design and streets? I am not aware, but I would suspect that if it is a routine branch review, that is how the cabinet secretary has described it. I am sure that it could touch on that. It may well be something that the committee wants to bring to the attention of the panel, but we will get to that point later. I am sure that it is Andrew White, please. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for the comments, minister. Picking up on Carol Hilton and the displaced cars, would you, if the bill goes through stage 2, stage 3, perhaps the Government look at guidance to local communities working with access panels and local community panels for guidance on the face of the bill in regard to displaced cars not being able to park with pavement and guiding them where they could park? Absolutely. The guidance would come in stages, so there would be national guidance on how policies should be implemented. Sandra White has described when decisions are being implemented about how the law should apply at the most local level, what streets are affected, where do the exemptions exist. I think that full community participation would be absolutely vital at that point to get the decisions right. That is not like setting a national speed limit or setting a national law that applies consistently across the country with that broad-brush approach. It has to be very local to the circumstances, and all members appreciate that. It is appropriate, reasonable and sensitive to the local area. To get the right decision, I do not think that you could have a roads engineer and a planner sitting in a room listing the streets where it applies. It would have to be proper community engagement, and that would feature very strongly in guidance. How is it described? I am sure that I have a note here that says that it would be an iterative process. Can I ask you, minister, that you said at the beginning of this that if it was brought forward by government or if it reached stage 2, government would have amendments. Could you give us an indication of some of the areas that we have not covered yet where you would say that amendment would have to take place? In the member's consultation and in your evidence session so far, you have been able to provide information about that. There are issues around the workability, the practicalities, driver education and all those matters. I want to be reassured as the transport minister that they are all addressed, and that is the terminology. I want to make sure that we have all of that refined should we come to stage 2. I would need further engagement with local authorities as well, although there is a collective opinion, individual local authorities have raised concerns as well. I think that I would want to capture what are the criticisms of the bill and try to address that through refinement, and that is around consistency, education and the reasonableness. What would the guidance look like and see what requires to be legislated for and what is more appropriate to guidance? I do not have any stage 2 amendments at the moment because we are not at stage 2, but I would be quite comprehensive in ensuring that the bill is refined to a point where there is absolute confidence in it going forward. People do not need to be alarmed that suddenly they cannot park anywhere close to their homes. That is why it is a bit clearer around what the exemptions in a local situation would look like. Convener, as you would expect, it is a listening Government recognising that if we are supporting the legislation that it is refined in a way that your evidence-gathering sessions would expect. In terms of the financial memorandum that accompanies the current draft bill, what do you have to say about that and how do you think that that may need to change with some of the things that you envisage? Some things are difficult to quantify and we have had experience of that before, because we do not fully know the level at which it would be enforced at a local level, or say in two years' time how many more local authorities might have gone for decriminalised parking. I think that there are unknown factors at the moment and I want a fuller understanding of that. I know that a number of respondents complained about the lack of resources to proceed with that. That is something that I want a deeper understanding of as well. Every year, as you are aware, the negotiating body for local government cosla discusses finances with the Scottish Government reaching a financial settlement. The Scottish Government has got a practice of fully funding any new legislative burden on local authorities, so I think that that is a discussion that would have to be had as well. Does anyone else have any other questions? Just to come back to the issue about drop kerbs minister, the issue that came up last week was from some of the disability organisations. In the definition that one of the witnesses gave was a technical crossing point that had been instituted in the streetscaping. The concern was that, at the present moment, there does not seem to be anything in any legislation or any regulation in place to protect where a dropped kerb has taken place to allow access for wheelchair users and electric chair users to cross the road. Whether or not the Scottish Government and its powers could advise or give guidance to local authorities where streetscaping has taken place and the instituted dropped kerbs for access issues, the guidance could be given to the local authorities to say that it should be putting some enforcement in at the present moment to ensure that these dropped kerbs are protected for those vehicle users. I am talking about wheelchair users and electric chair users to be able to cross the roads. I am not sure what the question was. I get the point. If the point is that we need more work on that, I would agree, because some dropped kerbs have been put in by private individuals, some of them have been put in by the local authority, and there are different standards that have been used. Some are very formalised, very clear. Some are more ad hoc, random, maybe not of a quality that you would expect, and then there is a question, should that be enforced as well. I think that that point needs further work around that in terms of definition and understanding. Minister, obviously it will have come as a bit of a surprise to some what you have had to say today about supporting stage 1 in principle, but giving a commitment that if the current Government is re-elected and the competences have come over, you will deal with it at that point. What message would you have to the many campaigners who are out there who have real concerns about this and have had for a number of years and who have waited a fair amount of time to try to get some solution? Well, thanks for the opportunity to say that, convener. The only reason, and I don't make it as a partisan point, and I think that Opposition members appreciate that. I can't speak for Parliament, I can only speak for Government, and that is why I say that the Government will give a commitment to legislate on this if we are not able to do so in this current term. If we are able to do so in this current term, and I have outlined why that seems unlikely because of the parliamentary timetable, this Government would be supportive in addressing the issues that have to be addressed and supporting Sandra White's bill. If the bill is not able to be progressed, then, for the first time, I say to the public that this Government, if it is re-elected, will legislate because that needs to be done. It also needs to be done in a way that inspires confidence, compliance and clarity, and that is why I will undertake work and commission Transport Scotland to do the necessary work in liaison with local government to improve the accessibility agenda. I think that it is very important for our active travel priorities around walking and cycling and the accessibility agenda to ensure fairness. I know that some campaigners might be disappointed that there has not been legislation passed in successive sessions of the Scottish Parliament, but never before has there been a commitment from the Government to legislate in this area if the member's bill fails, which we will support. I have acknowledged that there are issues of how it would operate and what the guidance and definitions might look like, but if the Parliament and this committee agree that this is something that we should do, then we can make it happen. If the committees agree to let it proceed, I will report to the chamber of course and we will have a stage 1 debate. I would like to see a consensus that this is an area that Parliament can work together on, and it will have the Government's absolute support. I wish that the timescales had gone more quickly. We have been working with the UK Government to ensure that there was legislative competence. I am not making a criticism of the UK Government. We are working in partnership to try to address those legislative competence issues, but there is divided legal opinion whether we could have competently legislated in this area, but if we could, we would have been able to proceed. As there is doubt, and as I say because this affects matters of financial penalties or potential criminality, I think that it is important that all doubt is removed and hopefully it can inspire confidence that people may have waited a long time for the necessary legislation, but this Government is supportive of that legislation to ensure that our footways and our roadways are made even safer. Thank you minister. I thank you on behalf of the committee for giving evidence this morning. Can you please ensure that we get the memorandum as soon as possible, please? I suspend for a couple of minutes for a change of witnesses. As I mentioned earlier, we now move on to our second panel of witnesses. I welcome Sandra White, MSP, the member in charge of the bill, and Professor Tom Rye, director of Transport Research Institute at Edinburgh Napier University. Ms White, do you want to make an opening statement particularly after what you have heard this morning? I would like to make an opening statement, convener, and thank you very much. I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to come here and give evidence on what I think and others is a very, very important issue. I want to thank the many groups and individuals who have contacted myself and took part in the consultation also. The very special thanks should go to the clerks and staff who have worked so hard to get to that point at the stage 1 of the proposed bill and processing it. I know that the committee is aware of the history of the bill, so I am not going to go into the full history of it. It is suffice to say that it started in October 2010. My Ross Finney MSP and in March 2012 it was taken up by Joe Fitzpatrick MSP, and it now lies with myself as a mover of the proposed bill. It was mentioned by the minister that the proposed bill received 414 people writing in responses, one of the highest of any proposed member's bill, and 95 per cent of the responses said that they wanted the bill to progress. The intention of the bill, and it always has been my intention, is not to be punitive, but to have guidance and education to allow people freedom of movement, to allow people equal rights of movement simply to get on with their life, the way that you and I can. In some cases, obviously, even fit-enabled bodied persons cannot get along payments. They have to go on to roads that I find are very dangerous and others will find too. The minister mentioned, also, some of the evidence taken about street furnisher in my own area of Kelvin constituency. The council has put in boilers, they have put in trees, they have put in street furnisher, but if anyone wants to go along and see the situation there, they are actually knocking over boilers, they are knocking over trees, they are parked in between boilers and you just cannot move about at all on the payments. That is what it is like for me and others, I think that it must be like for elderly people, infirm people, people in wheelchairs, parents with children and buggies, blind people. It is not only very dangerous, but it also leads to isolation. I will finish on this point, convener. I am a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee. We just did an inquiry into loneliness and isolation and there is a direct correlation with people being stuck in their houses and not being able to get about with the actual detrimental effect that it has on their physical and mental health. The bill is about educating, it is about equal rights, human rights for everyone in the constituency and in Scotland and throughout to basically have freedom of movement. I will leave it at that, convener. Thank you. Obviously, you heard what the minister had to say to the committee earlier. He seemed to indicate that it would be best to deal with stage 1 and agree the bill in principle, even if there is no further movement during this term. Would you agree with that, and do you think that that may give some consolation to those folks who have campaigned hard to get some of these matters resolved? I would agree with that. I mean, I certainly would not disagree to move it on to stage 1 and having the debate in the Parliament. Obviously, what the minister has said about taking this up, if we do not have time in this parliamentary session, but he did mention the fact that if things moved on quicker, they would progress with it. I would be looking to things moving on quicker, if at all possible, and progressing with the bill if they are not able to move on with section 30 and speaking to the UK Government also through the Scotland Bill, then absolutely more than happy to support the fact that stage 1 agreed the principles and pick it up when we come back in the new session. If I can move on to the draft bill as is, we had evidence last week and also we had discussion about some of the exclusions. The draft bill would exclude most A and B roads and private roads, due to the definitions that you have put in. From my own perspective, I am going to be slightly parochial and I hope that it will forgive me. Aberdeen is somewhat different in the fact that A roads go through the city at this moment in time, and some of the worst problems that there are in terms of footway parking are on those A roads, Great Northern road, within my own constituency, and Great Northern road, leading to Ochmell road in Mark McDonald's constituency. Do you think that in hindsight you should have included A and B roads and private roads in the draft bill? Do you think that if we move forward that those roads should be included in any legislation? I do think that they should be included in any legislation and perhaps it was an emission of mine when you are looking at the whole area. You did not assume that A and B roads in Aberdeen are that way affected with the payment parking. I would also reiterate what was said in evidence taken from a number of council representations. The minister and members mentioned that it is very localised to the area. If there are problems in certain areas, i.e. A and B roads in Aberdeen, I think that that should be looked at specifically. I would certainly hope that, when it comes to stage 2, amendments would include A and B roads and private roads. Anyone else want to come in on those points around the others at this moment inside? In relation to A and B roads and private roads, why have you tried to explain there in terms to the convener why those roads were included? Many of the issues, and I know that your constituency works very well, and I know that the issues that your constituency is facing, especially with the growth in the number of flats that are being built around the private roads, by roads, junctions and the parking problems that are now causing the area. Do you think that, in hindsight, it would have been better to include those A and B private roads in your original bill? As I said to the convener in hindsight, we should have included those roads, but that is what dialogue is about, coming to give evidence. There are issues that are raised. You raise yourself in relation to the definition between dropped kerbs, cross-overs etc, which has obviously made people think that there are definitions there, and there are areas that should be included. You mentioned that, in my constituency of Glasgow-Kelvin, there has been legislation introduced by the council that certain flats are built that there are no cars allowed at all, so they are reacting to that type of thing in certain areas. However, it was not just in my constituency that we appreciate that it was throughout Scotland that we received recommendations, concerns that people had. That is why we have the dialogue, why we have evidence taking. If there is something that was omitted and caused enough concern, it should be included in stage 2 under amendments. I do not know if Professor Wright is that all right? Just a very quick addition on this point. In the part of Britain where there is a course of blanket ban on footway parking in London, A roads and B roads are included, similarly to any residential road or any other road. Does that work in London, Professor Wright? Does that work well? I used to work for London Transport, as was Transport for London in the early 1990s, and part of my job was travelling around in particular south-west London because I was working on bus priority at the time. That is part of London with some of the highest levels of car ownership in the whole conurbation. Parking on the footway is not an issue where it is not permitted, it is not carried out and people do not do it. That is on A roads, B roads and unclassified roads. I should also point out that, at that time in London, enforcement of parking on main roads, some main roads—sorry, called red routes—was the responsibility of the police, whilst in the rest of London the enforcement was the responsibility of decriminalised civil enforcement officers, the local authority wardens. However, there was no difference in the level of enforcement between the police-enforced roads and the others. Thank you very much. I just wanted to pursue the issue of definitions. Perhaps, since we are talking about the definition that is relied on right at the top of the public roads in built-up areas with the exception of special roads, it would probably be useful to include, in the interpretation section, a reminder as to the legal definition of special roads, essentially motorways. However, in Scotland, it includes one A road, part of the A74. That is a picky, definitional bit. Is that the A74M? It is. I am being the pedant, Mr Stevenson. On you go. It is just for completeness. It is because it is maintained by a different company that it is separately classified from the M74. However, let us not worry about that. Moving on, I am not clear what the way in which the bill is written what a vehicle is. The interpretation section makes reference to motor vehicle under section 136 of the 1984 Road Traffic Regulations Act, but motor vehicle only covers vehicles constructed for the use carriage of passengers up to a maximum weight of 2,540 kilograms. I would imagine that the definition of vehicle that you would desire to use in this particular bill would be more broad-reaching, but it would exclude things such as pedestrian control vehicles that are used for street cleaning and other exceptions. Would it be your intention to remove any doubt as to what vehicle means by bringing forward a definition that could make very clear what is intended? Ms White, do you want to make a crack at that? I will attempt to come back. Maybe Professor Rai can come in after you and tell us how the London legislation worked in that regard. Thank you very much, convener. Stuart always raises various issues, which, as I said, is about the conversation and given the evidence that is all about. You are absolutely correct about motor vehicles that is in the definition. I was not too sure about how many people it would carry, but when you mentioned the fact about cleansing vehicles, I must admit that I have never seen a cleansing vehicle parked up on a pavement in the city centre. I have certainly used it, but it is something that we would look at to see whether there are particular exemptions. The minister said that we would have to look at definitions before they went through on the bill at stage 2. I think that we would be looking at that, but to me, my mind is about motor vehicles that are blocking pavements, driveways and on-drop kerbs that people cannot get about. You might have seen, but I certainly have not seen those cleansing vehicles parked up on a pavement. Perhaps next time you walk up the Canninggate in Edinburgh, you may on occasion. I am sorry. To make the point that, because of the weight limit in the definition of motor vehicles, for example, Rolls-Royce limousines will exceed the 2,540 kilograms, which moves them into the definition under section 136 of heavy motor vehicles. I just make the general point—I am not trying to bottom this out just now—and I am sure that we would wish it to apply to large passenger vehicles of that character, but, of course, not exclude goods vehicles, which are covered by other definitions. I just think that there is a lack of clarity that it would be useful to have your commitment to take that one up and pursue it. I accept what Stuart Stevenson said. I will not get into the impact of different car Rolls-Royce limousines—I do not have many around my area—but, at the same time, they do exist. I will certainly be picking up on that point. I am not in the area that I stay in either. Professor Rye, do you want to give us an indication of how London dealt with the definition issue? I do not know the details of London legislation sufficiently to be able to say how it dealt with the definition issue, but in responding generally to the point that Mr Stevenson has raised, it is extremely important that the definition and motor vehicle of parking, waiting, loading, footway and so on are consistent with the existing relevant legislation that pertains in Scotland, for example, the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act. That neatly moves on to the second issue that I have, which is that the bill does not directly define what parking is. I think that one can glimpse what is meant by parking, but one is uncertain in that the word stop-stop or stopping is used in relation to parking at various stages in the bill. I would suggest that probably parking is where the vehicle has stopped and the driver is no longer in the vehicle that converts having been stopped to becoming parked. It would appear, as it is currently constructed, to, for example, catch people who stop in moving traffic because the definitions that are provided of parking implicitly would appear to catch that as parking and not be caught by the exclusions of what is caught. It would simply be useful for the member to indicate that, if she agrees with me, that this would be a subject that might be further considered for a more precise definition of what parking actually is so that the underpinnings become more robust so that we can take it forward. Ms White. Certainly, shoot, see, and raise is another point. The title of the bill is parking, double parking and parking on kerfs. I go out and ask somebody what they see when they see a car parked on a kerf. They certainly would not say that somebody was driving along the street and the indication was to stop cars that are on the roads. I will take that point on board and have a look at it. I have been to lots of community councils, and everybody seems to be very much in favour of this. Another thing that is mentioned, which is not covered in the bill, is the prevalence of A boards on pavements. I know that people mention that as much as double parking, and it is very important, and people like me who have a motorised vehicle push them out of the way and they get really ratty. I trust you to open up another canna words. Ms White. I think that Camden Buchanan makes a very valid point. Obviously, local councils have response before what you might say street furniture, and certainly with the prevalence of A boards. Also, when the good weather is in Scotland, the prevalence of table and chairs on pavements with people sitting outside cafes and pubs is something that I get my post bag every other day, and I certainly have written to councils regarding that. That comes into local planning issues, which I know has already been mentioned. It certainly is not including the bill, and I doubt that we would be able to interpret it in the bill, but we should look at it through the local government committee in regards to local councils pushing that forward, because it is very, very much something that is raised with me on numerous occasions, along with, obviously, the pavement parking as well. On that point—very briefly, George Adam, first of all, please—I was just going to say that last week you mentioned access panels, Sandra Elleron. Last week we had the national body for the access panels, and they were saying that it may be a good idea, because some of the problems that we have with drop kerbs where they go and how it is planned in the town is the fact that a lot of the access panels are not consulted and they are not a statutory body. Now I know that the planning review is under way at the moment. Would you consider at this stage of just asking what you think? Do you think that there should be a statutory body, like local community councils, to feed into that type of information and might help in a lot of the problems that we are having locally? I think that there should be a statutory body. We are talking about local level. People want to have the say that they live in the communities and they experience those things. I think that it is imperative that the local access panels should be statutory bodies, particularly when they are looking at planning issues. I think that it was Cara Cara Hilton that raised the fact about planning. Sometimes planners build towns and they never think of who is living in them or areas, particularly people with big buggies, trying to get off and on pavements even up and down stairs. I think that the more people who access that, the better it would be for everyone. I think that local access panels should have a statutory body, the same as community councils as well. An observation perhaps in the light of what Cameron Buchanan said. The section 136 provides a definition for invalid carriages that have vehicles adapted for the carriage of people not exceeding a weight of 254 kilograms. In definition of vehicle, we probably would wish to exclude from the provisions of the bill, but it presently stands almost certainly that we are catching such vehicles. If I can, I would like to return to a comment that Professor Rhyw made earlier about his experience of working in London. Professor Rhyw said that he brought in the prohibition and the enforcement and then people stopped parking. That is great. That is what we would all want to see happen in Scotland. I would like to know whether he went and parked somewhere else or did people stop using cars or did households reduce the number of cars? In the real world, people still need a car more often than not. I know that lots of people do not have cars, but lots of families rely on a car to get to work or to get to school or to support the life of their families. Do you know what alternatives were provided or do people find in London because they were able to stop parking? Professor Rhyw, please. The legislation to which I am referring in London was introduced in 1974, so well before I was working there. I cannot comment on how people reacted at the time that the ban was introduced. All I can say is that parts of London at that time in the 1971 census had higher levels of car ownership than many parts of Scotland do now. Clearly, people were able to cope exactly how they coped. I do not think that that has been documented, to be honest. I apologise if that does not fully answer your question. Forgive me for not appreciating the timescales. I hope that I have not offended you by thinking that you were working there in 1970s. Would you be interested to discover if there was any research done at the time or any follow-up done at that time? It sounds like it has worked, and it was addressing a very big problem, possibly an even bigger problem, that we have got in Scotland. For things to learn, it would be good to discover that. We will certainly try to get the spice to find out if there is any information in that for you, Jane. Sandra, you wanted to come back in there. I wanted to come back in there, and I think that Professor Rye wanted to come up in that. Okay, well, you first please. Just to, obviously, to Jane, we could not find any updated evidence, but I have got the House of Common Library payment on the Street Park in England. There are some cases in there, but I believe that they are pre-1974, but you certainly leave it with the clards. There is also Lord Tope, who was the councillor in London Borough of Sutton in 1974, where that happened when the payment parking measures were introduced. He has a number of comments and speeches on the subject, which is favourable to what happened. Just for the committee's information, Simon Hoare MP is sponsoring the second reading of the payment parking bill in the House of Commons on 4 December, which is Friday, to ban payment parking in areas in England and Wales. There are things on going, so I can leave it with the clerk, who mentions the issues that I have raised and the upcoming debate in the House of Commons on Friday, which might be of some help on how that works. That would be very useful. We will get the clerks to circulate that to all members. Professor Rye, please. Just to briefly develop a London situation, it is important to remember that, of course, the London legislation permits exemptions as this would, and one does see in streets in London those exemptions that are signed and marked, which allow either four wheels or two wheels of the vehicle to be parked on the footway within the marked areas. The minister spoke about the balance between the needs of pedestrians and the needs of car owners. I think that the way that the legislation is used in London to provide exemptions in certain areas where there are very, very high parking pressures and real problems with street space shows that that balance is being struck. I would expect that to happen here also. Professor Rye, what would you say would be the impact of public transport in London, because we have trains, we have underground, we have buses, we have trams, we have a number of modes of transport in London that we do not have in many of the towns and cities in Scotland. We often hear that the transport system, if there is a better public transport system, then people may use their car less to get about. Certainly in London, anytime that I go down and speak to friends in London, they say that in most days they would not use their car, they would use public transport to get around. Professor Rye, what are the two responses to that? I think that we have to bear in mind that in 1974, when this ban was introduced in London, the areas that I was referring to that had higher levels of car ownership than many parts of Scotland do now, those are areas of outer London. He public transports accessibility in areas of outer London, whilst it is perhaps not as poor as it is in lots of parts of Scotland. It is certainly nothing like one experience in central London. In addition to that, since 1974, the inter-London public transport system has been developed to a far greater extent than it was at that time. I think that one cannot say that the fact that it worked in 1974 is only because London has a better public transport system or had a better public transport system at that time. Professor Rye could reference the statement that he has just made that higher car ownership in London. The figures that I have, and this is absolutely from memory, are 34 per 100 houses in London and 45 in Glasgow and 55 in Edinburgh. Which cities had he in mind that had higher car ownership in London? I am talking about car ownership in 1971 in London, compared to car ownership in Scotland now. When the ban was introduced in London compared to when a ban might be introduced here, that was the distinction. It is based on census 2011 statistics and census 1971 statistics, which I could forward to Mr Stevenson if you wish. I thank you for your evidence this morning. Obviously, there has been some discussion about the current planning review panel. Ms White, if you intended to write to them about certain of the issues that have arisen? Absolutely, convener. We have looked at the review panel. There are lots of things, not just the parking bill but issues that Cameron Buchanan had raised. As a local MSP and an MSP who is proposing the bill, I will be wearing two hats at that particular time to write to them. Can I pick up on one point, even if you do not mind? It has not really been mentioned. The police have said that it is about clarity as well. The police have said that it will bring greater clarity. When the minister was talking about resources for local councils, I think that we really have to bear in mind the amount of repair work that local councils have to do, not just to pavements but to underline electricity cables. In a way, it is not punitive, it is educational but, in the long term, it is much more beneficial for people and the human rights act to be able to get about. In the long term, I think that it will save councils money as well. Thank you very much. I suspend until quarter past. Agenda item 3 is a continuation of our brief inquiry into the governance arrangements for arms length external organisations, although it has landed up a bit longer than we may be hoped for. The second evidence session on 18 November took evidence from Highlife Highland and Highland Council, EDI Group and the City of Edinburgh Council, Culture NL and North Lanarkshire Council and Bonacord Care. Aberdeen City Council did not attend this evidence session and we have invited the chief executive, the council leader and the relevant council official to attend today's meeting to explain their reasons for non-attendance and to answer the questions that members were not able to put to them. I welcome Councillor Jenny Leng, leader of Aberdeen City Council, Angela Scott, chief executive and Judith Proctor of health and social care integration. I ask about the situation of the invitation and the decision not to appear in front of the committee. My understanding is that the original invitation was sent to Ms Proctor and Ms Ross, who is the chief executive of Bonacord Care. On receipt of that, Ms Proctor discussed the situation with the chief executive about whether she was the most relevant person to attend and also about the capacity that we had within the council to send somebody to that hearing. The chief executive spoke to me about it and said that she was minded to write and inform the committee that we didn't feel that we had adequate capacity to send a council official at that point. I accepted that, because we have had discussions recently about the capacity that we have within our health and social care team. You may well be aware that we have been asked to take part. I think that it has actually started now. It was due to start yesterday, I think, a joint inspection of older people's services. We discussed that at the time, because we have had a fairly rigorous inspection situation in Aberdeen over the 18-month tenure of the chief executive. It was discussed by all group leaders across the council about the joint inspection and the agreement was that we would write to the cabinet secretary for health, wellbeing and sport and ask if that inspection could be delayed in order to allow us to concentrate on the integration agenda. The cabinet secretary responded saying that she felt that the inspection had to go ahead. Can I stop you there, Councillor Lang? That inspection is a matter for the inspectors, and it is not a matter for this committee for your communication between the cabinet secretary or anyone else. What I am trying to get to grips with is a number of things here. We are looking at governance of allios. One of the things is that I received a letter that was passed to the clerks from Mrs Scott, which did not only respond on behalf of the council, but responded on behalf of Bonacord care, an arms-length external organisation. Now, what I would like to know is why it is that it was felt that Aberdeen City Council could respond on behalf of Bonacord care and arms-length external organisation? I was putting that in context because you asked why the council made the decision about not sending anybody. I think that it is right that we put that in the context of the discussions that I had with the chief executive were predicated by previous aspects around capacity, and I was happy for the chief executive to write on that basis. The chief executive is best placed to answer the question about the content of her letter. Obviously, the next I realised that there was an issue was when I was contacted by a journalist asking if I would be attending the committee today, because that was the decision of the committee. Perhaps the chief executive is best to cover that aspect. Can I ask Mrs Scott then, please? About the letter responding on behalf of both you as the chief executive of the council and Bonacord care. I had a discussion with Sandra Ross, the MD of Bonacord, about the impact of the same capacity issues that Councillor Lynge has addressed. We reached the conclusion that neither of us had the capacity to support the inquiry, and the MD of Bonacord was quite content for me to write a response on behalf of both. In terms of the governance issues around about even that aspect of it, an arms length organisation, it was felt that it was okay for the council to respond on their behalf. With the permission of the MD to do that. Okay. In terms of after we received that letter, my understanding is that the clerks phoned Ms Proctor on at least two occasions in your own office, Mrs Scott, on two occasions around about the invitation to appear but did not manage to elicit any responses. I spoke to the clerk of the committee, Mr Cullum. That's fine. If I could move on in terms of the governance aspects of Bonacord care and Aberdeen City Council's situation around about that. First of all, can I ask which committee or committees of the council Bonacord cares work would report to you, Mrs Scott? Two committees of the council, the audit committee, the audit and risk committee and the education and integrator children services committee. There's also a requirement for an annual report to go to fuel council. Okay. In her evidence last week, Mrs Ross seemed to indicate that her main point of contact was the Allio hub, which she said, if I remember rightly, that she had to report to four times a year. Is that correct? Her main point of contact is the commissioner of the service, which currently rests with the head of older care. The Allio hub comprises the commissioner, the lead commissioner for the service and, in addition, includes finance procurement, HR, legal representations from across councils, corporate governance directorate. Looking at some of the committee papers, which I've had time to do during the course of this interlude, I see that on 25 June 2015, at the audit, risk and scrutiny committee, there were allio governance outstanding issues, which included a, to put in place consistent reporting arrangements for the scrutiny of allios, and b, to ensure that allios establish risk management processes and frameworks. It also in that report said that allio governance hub performance was not consistent. That same minute went to the Education and Children Services Committee on 3 September 2015, exactly the same minute. Would that be the two main committees that would deal with those matters? In addition to council receiving the annual report from Bonacord and the annual report from the chief social work officer. How often would reports from allios, from Bonacord care, not necessarily the allio governance hub, go to the audit, risk and scrutiny committee and the education and children services committee? We've given a commitment that the minute from each allio hub meeting would be submitted to the audit committee in order for the audit committee to scrutinise further the minute from the allio hub. At this moment in time, according to again those reports, that's only a biannual meeting of that allio governance hub, is that correct? To date, but we have a recommendation from Audit Scotland that we consider moving that to four times a year. Okay, let's move on. George Adam? I used to be a councillor as well when I was on an arms-length organisation, but I don't really know what Bonacord care is, so I can ask a couple of daffboy simple questions to start off with. What is the make-up of the actual board, the governance board itself? The board is made up of a chair for non-executive directors. Okay, are there no local councillors on it at all? No. MD and the finance director of Bonacord are also members of the board, but there was a decision by council not to place any elected members on the board of Bonacord. Is that not highly unusual for allios? Is it not normally there's somebody like the democratic accountability for them as well with having elected members on the board itself? It's a variation across the allios that we have. I wasn't in the council at the time, then council was making this decision, but my understanding is that it was a kind of concern around the conflict of interest and increasingly the interpretation of conflicts of interest from the councillor's code of conduct. But also it was in part about the expertise required. The four non-executives that have been appointed to the Bonacord care again, my understanding is that we are all recruited based on their relevant skills and experience and recruited through the public appointments process. Are we saying that councils in Aberdeen City Council aren't capable of being on the board, don't have the skillset to be able to do it and are we also saying that normally there has been a talk about conflict of interest in allios for councils, but it tends to be when you're told under no circumstances you're there as a representative of the allio, although you are a councillor as well, so it's a case of getting individual. So are we saying that there wasn't a skillset within Aberdeen City Councils to actually do that? I'm not saying that. It was a decision taken by councillors that we would not have councillors on there. As the chief executive said, she wasn't there at the time that decision was taken. It was felt that it would be best if we had people with the correct skillset. councillors were involved in that selection process or admin councillors were because the opposition councillors chose not to take part in that selection process. However, it seems a bizarre decision from the point of view A, the democratic accountability, but also the fact that you normally get a good mix. You normally get a mix on the board of the elected members and people who have that experience that you're talking about. So it seems strange when compared, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it seems strange when compared to other allios across the country. It was a different approach that was taken. I wouldn't dispute that, but I think that it was taken in a democratic way. One person's different approach is one person's strange then. One of the other things is that the actual board members themselves, where are they from? Where have they been selected? You said that you went through the proper process, but are they local to the northeast? Are they people who have worked in the area? Are their whole life knowledgeable of the area? We don't know if the individuals are. I don't know if they reside in Aberdeen. Thank you for that. We can follow up on that. John Wilson, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Just to follow up on the questions about the democratic accountability, and we have just heard that the Bon Accord does not have any elective members on the board and they are not involved in the discussions on the board. How does Aberdeen council make sure that they are held to account for the services that they deliver for the public money that they receive from Aberdeen City Council? Who is going to take that on? Ms Proctor, please. The process has been described in terms of the governance of the organisation through the Allio Hub, through the annual report to Full Council and to the Allio Hub reporting to the various committees of the council. In addition to that, we have regular reporting from Bon Accord care in terms of their performance and delivery against their key performance indicators. We get weekly statistics from Bon Accord care in terms of what they are delivering, the number of service users, we have information from them in regard to on-going issues of complaints, comments and compliments that they are getting. I attend their board meetings or one of my senior managers attends their board meetings, and we also have regular contact with them through our contracts and commissioning team in terms of delivery against their contract. Can I just clarify in what capacity do you attend or your representative attend the board meeting? Of course, as an observer, not as a member of the board. Do you have full speaking rights at that board meeting? I do, yes. But you do not have voting rights? I do not vote. You do not vote right? You indicate that the Allio Hub provides weekly statistics to yourself? Bon Accord care provides weekly statistics to us, not the Allio Hub. Explain the difference between the Allio Hub and the Bon Accord? The Allio Hub. Your first question was about holding to account, from a governance perspective. Holding to account from a democratically elected member's perspective. What are we holding Bon Accord to account for? It is management of its risk and it is management of performance. The Allio Hub has been designed to make sure that we have capability in that Allio Hub that can give the audit committee, the primary committee within the council, the democratic committee that the Allio Hub on behalf of the audit committee can look at the system of risk management that Bon Accord has in place. That is a primary function of the audit committee of the council, so the Allio Hub gives a view to the audit committee around Bon Accord's systems of risk management that are in place. In addition, the Allio Hub also scrutinises supported by the commissioning team the performance of Bon Accord. Again, the reports of those are submitted to the audit committee and the service committee. We are providing the two committees within the council evidence around the management of risk and the management of performance. In addition, our own internal audit function has been commissioned because of the number of Allios that we have, doing a rotation of looking at the Allios. The findings of our internal audit are submitted to both our audit committee and our service committee. In addition, the care inspector, as an external assurance body, is providing assurance to those reports from the care inspector that are equally submitted to the service committee. Our two primary service committees are provided with the information to allow them to hold Bon Accord to account. The Allio Hub is largely populated with officers with appropriate expertise, so we have a finance lead, a HR lead, a risk lead, a legal risk and the commissioning front from there. All that information is triangulated. It is all joined together because it tells a kind of cohesive story about the performance of that organisation. We are presenting that information back into our respective service committees, which is where the elected members sit on. Is that largely populated by officers or exclusively populated by officers? At this stage, as we have been creating the Allio Hub to date, the Allio Hub has been comprised of officers. That is consistent with the recommendation, as I understand it, to create a stakeholder group, which said that the stakeholder group should comprise officers, commissioners and elected members. The complexity at this point in time is all officers, but the reports from that are submitted into our committees. Thank you for that follow-up question, convener. That is where I was going to take this question as well. It seems surprising for someone like myself, having been an elected member to make that declaration in the past, that it sounds as though the information is provided to the Allio Hub. The Allio Hub, which is made up of officers and commissioning officers, then sift, or potentially sift, the information that is then provided to the democratically elected members of the council to read the reports that are then delivered to them from the Allio Hub. Is that the situation? There are three layers of assurance on any issue within the council, whether it is the arm's length structure or our primary services. I provide that assurance through three levels—management assurance, internal assurance, through internal audit and external assurance. We are being very consistent in the Allios, in that we are providing the Allos, providing that management assurance. Council is commissioning its own internal audit to provide assurance, and then the care and sweater. That is wholly consistent with the assurance that we provide on all other service activity across the council. One of the explanations that we have been given for the establishment of Allios by local authorities is to save costs to the local authority, to get services delivered because of the cost savings that could be made, because of the charitable arrangements that could be set up. I would be interested in finding out what additional systems have been put in place by particularly Aberdeen, given that we are looking at Aberdeen and that you have the Allio Hub. Additional costs of the systems that have been put in place to monitor the delivery of services. If the general argument is that setting up Allios can actually bring better value to the public pound to local authorities, if we are setting up very complicated monitoring systems that involve senior staff of the council, to monitor the service delivery, is that the same type of monitoring system that was put in place prior to the services being transferred to Allios? I will attempt to answer that. All I can explain is under my watch how I want our group structure to operate, because it is complex. That is the nature of service delivery in local government. I have four Allios. I have a volume of tier two that are smaller. In addition to that, I will have the integrated joint-joint board. In the midst of all that, I need to make sure that the scrutiny arrangements support all of that. Within the Allio Hub, there was a clear business case that was submitted to council that set out, just as you have described, a number of benefits that were anticipated. For me, the primary initial objective for me in getting the Allio Hub created was to make sure that we were providing that assurance back into the democratic system in the way that you have been scrutinising. That was objective number one for me. I also inherited a number of Allios in my group structure to make sure that we were given all of the Allios, which is quite extensive in Aberdein City Council, that we were being consistent in our scrutiny of all Allios. I was not persuaded that we had that in place. My primary objective has been to get the Allio Hub set up and functioning for all of that, both the tier one and the tier two. The second objective for me is to go back to the business case and to make sure that we are tracking the benefits that were set out in that business case to council, of which council then made the decision to move to an Allio structure. There has to be a work stream and a focus within the Allio Hub to make sure that we are tracking the benefits that we set out to council to support that. That is the next phase of the Allio Hub to get to moving into that space. Thank you for that explanation, Ms Cobb. My initial point was that Allios were supposed to have been established to save money to local authorities and value for a public pound. Under the previous system before Allios would have been set up, my understanding would have been that the delivery of a service would have been the responsibility either of head of that service who would have reported to a director who would have then reported to the relevant council committees in relation to the performance delivery of the services being delivered by that local authority. What I am now concerned about is the example that you have given where the Allio Hub has now set up a whole new structure, or sounds like a whole new structure, to monitor the delivery of the services by the Allios, which then, as I described, is either sifts or filters information that goes before elected members at the audit committee or other committees of the council, or indeed the full council when it comes to reporting on the delivery of those services. How has that been costed in relation to Aberdeen City Council's good practice and saving public pound in relation to transferring services to Allios? The Allio Hub is not a different structure. It is largely comprised of officials and officers within the corporate governance directorate whose primary role is to support the governance of the organisation. All we are doing is, if you go back when those services were in house, finance colleagues, legal colleagues or HR colleagues would support the service in its scrutiny and challenge of the services when they were in house. I think that there is a strength in the approach that we are devising through the Allio Hub that I would like to see spread and deeper scrutiny of the services that are within the council, because the strength for the Allio Hub is that now we are joining all the information together in order to make sure that we are triangulating all that information. We are no longer looking at performance through one lens. We are looking at the outcomes that are being achieved versus the financial performance versus the staff issues that are coming. There is a strength for me in bringing all that together. There is not an additional cost to the council in having created the Allio Hub. It will be a quarterly meeting led by our director of corporate governance, where officers are bringing all the information that is coming into the council from Bonacord and scrutinising that information. There is not an additional cost associated with the Allio Hub. The second part of your question is about the cost of setting up Bonacord, and it has its own management structure. I do not know if Ross got into any of the detail for that, but clearly there is a management structure that has been put in place to support that. That was a cost when the service was in the houses. I am not sure what more I can add to the question that you have asked. I was going to ask about performance. It sounds that you have structures in place to gather and examine a lot of performance information. Has there ever been occasion when the council started to take action based on concerns that it has got about performance? Has there ever had to be any sanctions or any withdrawal of contracts? Are you satisfied that the performance is good and continuing to improve? Who is going to take that on? Ms Proctor? I will clarify whether the question is specific to Bonacord care or more general about Allio Hub. I think that we will be able to see what is Bonacord care because that is what we talked about last time. We have applied no sanctions. I will ask the same question to everybody else last time, just to be consistent. Does Bonacord care pay the living wage and fully funded through the council to do that? I go back to the first question that has been raised by Jane Baxter, and that is that we specify that we concentrate on Bonacord care. Has there been any occasion when Aberdeen City Council has withheld funding from any of the Allios under its funding regime? Thank you. In our survey that we put back, we indicated that, but it was not Bonacord care. It was one of our other Allios. I am waiting on it out because I want to examine the suspension of funding to an Allio. It was a delayed funding because it had not produced the business plan that we had expected, so it was given additional time in which to do that. It was delayed funding because it had additional time to produce a business plan. What were the practical implications of that in relation to funding being provided? My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the funding that any Allio would receive from local authority would be for staff costs. If you delay funding to an Allio, do you have any implications on staff being paid by that Allio? I am not aware that I did, because the time delay was so short. What was the time delay? It was a couple of weeks. There were no financial issues with that Allio in relation to the non-payment. I am not aware that there were any. I would be grateful if you could check that out because I am keen to know if local authorities are taking action against Allios and withholding funding, that could potentially have a knock-on effect in relation to the operational delivery of the services by the Allio if local authorities were so minded to take action. I accept that and we can check that. The other thing that I would like to point out is that it was before we had the Governance Hub that that took place. It has not since then. I would like to move back to Bonacord care and having leaked to the Audit, Risk and Scrutiny and Education and Children Services Committee. Nowhere could I find key performance indicators. How do elected members get the key performance indicators from Bonacord care about the delivery of service to some of the most vulnerable folk in the city? The annual report that Bonacord care provides. What you are saying to me, Ms Proctor, is that the only opportunity for elected members to scrutinise key performance indicators would be through the annual report and the questioning session around the annual report. The Allio hub will also look at areas of high risk and at the risk register of the provider. I am asking about elected member scrutiny. I am not asking about the Allio hub but what you are saying to me is that at this moment, as it stands, the only way that elected members can look at key performance indicators around about the care delivery that Bonacord care is carrying out is at the time of the annual report. Is that correct? That would be correct and that would be the same with all our external providers. I understand in terms of the other external providers but what we are talking about here is some very vulnerable, often at great risk people. From my perspective, if I was an elected member with a situation where an Allio was dealing with care, I would be wanting to see key performance indicators on a much more regular basis because, after all, the buck stops with the elected members. As it stands, that is only once a year. All our providers are providing services to people who are vulnerable. Key performance indicators in terms of vulnerable people and our performance against them as the social work department are reported regularly to education and children's services, which is the parent committee for adult services, until such time as the integrated joint board goes live. I looked at the Education and Children's Services Committee agenda from 3 September 2015. In terms of adult care there, what we had was the same minute about the Allio governance hub that went to the Audit, Risk and Scrutiny Committee. A report on the adult service performance report did not give me any key performance indicators at all. When was the last time that key performance indicators around about social care aspects were reported to a committee of the council? The performance report that goes to committee are the KPIs for social care. That brief set of graphs was the KPIs that go to the committee. Those are the performance indicators for adult social care. Just in the recognition that there are a whole load of other commissioners, commission bodies that the council uses. The report to council is reflecting the totality of the outcomes that we are achieving from all of our providers, Bon Accord being one. At the very beginning of that report, there are the objectives of ensuring that people at risk are protected, people are effectively supported within their families and communities, people fully participate in individual service planning, review and delivery, wellbeing as promoted in all care groups, and that our resources are managed effectively and that our organisation is effective. Those KPIs and the minute from the Allio hub allow you to adhere to those principles and to scrutinise to make sure that that is happening. Sorry, can you repeat the question? Absolutely, I can repeat the question and I will go right back to the start. At the adult service performance report at the beginning of it, it says that the objectives are to ensure that people at risk are protected, people are effectively supported within their families and communities, people fully participate in individual service planning, review and delivery, wellbeing as promoted in all care groups, that our resources are managed effectively and our organisation is effective. Do you think that the minutes from the Allio governance hub and the brief report on those KPIs actually allow elected members to scrutinise properly to make sure that those objectives are being achieved, particularly in terms of the service delivery by Bon Accord care? I would say that it is up to the members of that committee if they are unhappy with the reports that they get to instruct officers to bring additional information. As far as the KPIs go, you have obviously looked at the committees that we have talked about that are dealing with the Allios now. From what we have heard from Ms Proctor and Mrs Scott, the performance that we are reporting to the committee is for all services that the council is providing in that relation. That would be no different if we were operating without an Allio. The reporting information would be the same, apart from that we would not have the governance hub aspect to it and it probably would not be appearing in front of Audit and Risk Committee. It would just be coming to the service committees. I think that we have probably got a couple of layers in there that we would not have if the services were being provided directly by the council as opposed to an Allio. My understanding is that that is the information that we have reported on for some considerable time and it would be up to elected members if they required additional information to request that. You have got more layers than you had previously, which follows on from what Mr Wilson said earlier, but looking at the information that is being given to councillors seems to be much less than the performance indicators that were given to councillors when I was a member of Aberdeen City Council. We would have to look back the records on that. The other aspect that I would say is that Audit and Risk Committee is chaired up by Opposition members and the vice-chair is an Opposition member, so I would have thought that if there was unhappiness from elected members regarding that, that would be brought to the floor and also at the service committees. I am sorry, but I am speaking now councillor Lyon. In terms of the social care and wellbeing objectives that I have read out and I am not going to read again, I would have thought that there would have been another body other than the Audit, Scrutiny and Risk Committee looking at that. That seems to be at the moment the education and children services committee and from what I can see there is not that much information there. Can I move on to the aspect of savings? Obviously, one of the things that others have given evidence on is the expected savings from moving to an allio situation. There are those savings and non-domestic rates and VAT and other things. Could you give us an indication of how much saving Aberdeen City Council has made from moving from in-house to the allio Bonacord care? The business case that went to Aberdeen City Council indicated savings within five years. Obviously, we are just 18 months into the operation of Bonacord care. What is the saving thus far? We are not looking at savings year on year but within the broad delivery of that five-year plan. Would it be correct that, as the shift over took place, the budget for the first year was £23 million from the council to Bonacord care? Can I just get some clarification about the remit? Is it an investigation into Bonacord care? No, it is an investigation into arms-length external organisations. What I would say is that there was a business case put forward that was agreed by council. I take on board that allios are set up in order to make savings but that is not the whole point of the business case that came before us. There were various other aspects to that which we can obviously send to committee members so that they can see what the reasoning was behind that. We would appreciate that councillor laying. However, what we have tried to do with all of the folk who have come in front of us is to establish if any savings have actually been made by moving from an in-house service to an allio. Most folks have been able to point that out. The thing is that, during the interlude, it is given some of us the time to go and have a look at other things around about that. My understanding is that you can set the record straight by writing to us that the original budget was £23 million. That was raised to £24 million. There was a million pound uplift. That has risen to £25.5 million and is now going to rise even further to £26.4 million. That is quite an uplift that has to be said. It seems that much more delivery of service is going to other providers than bonacord care in percentage terms. Would that be the case or do you want to write to us about that? That is a point of clarification around the increases. As was asked earlier about whether we provide the living wage, what was important to us when we set up bonacord care was that the terms and conditions that staff received were the same as if they had remained in-house. As a result of that, we have obviously had pay increases have occurred and that has obviously led to increased amounts going to bonacord care in relation to that and terms and conditions and levels of service. I think that we need to bear that in mind and perhaps it would be best if we wrote to the committee on that basis so that we have an understanding of where those amounts have come from rather than getting into it today. That would be extremely useful. I wonder if you could also write to the committee round about the external funding or external income aspect of the business case. The business case for this was largely predicated in bringing in additional income. Are we correct in that? Part of it was around the right to trade and to reinvest. That was within the business case. My understanding is that that will reach 100,000 in 2019, but maybe you can clarify that for us in writing to you, please. I take it that it is just bonacord care. You want clarification and not any of the other allios that we deal with? No, we were just dealing with bonacord care. We were trying to match one allio with one council when we set out to do this. Mr Wilson, please. As a follow-up to that, convener, I would be grateful when we did receive evidence from Ms Ross. Ms Ross was asked about the pension liabilities of bonacord and, basically, she admitted on the record that bonacord care was an admitted body into the pension scheme, but indicated that the pension deficit had increased over the period, the last two years or the last 18 months of the operational period. I would ask the council if anything happened to bonacord care. I am assuming that the council would take back in house those services. Do you monitor the liabilities of any of the allios in the event that the council would have to step in and deliver these services if the allio was to, for whatever reason, have their funding withdrawn or could no longer operate or the board felt that it could no longer operate? To allow the council to intervene in the event of a significant failure in bonacord, the council has the right under the contract to bring those services back in. If anything did happen, we would do that. My understanding of the contract is that we would honour that. The pension deficit for all-admitted bodies is a whole governance that sits around the north-east pension fund, and bonacord has been admitted into that pension fund. We consistently look at all the council's financial exposure, whether that has a consequence of pension deficits or whether it is a consequence of giving guarantees to any organisation. We are, and that is the role of our section 95, to monitor the council's constant exposure to those things that are clearly on the balance sheet, but also to those things where we are giving guarantees. I can assume from that answer, Mr Scott, that includes any allios that are operating under the funding regime from the council. The other allios that we have looked at and selected carefully, one was a cultural allio, the other a leisure one and one a property one, obviously slightly different in terms of bonacord care with the care service aspect, particularly when it comes to health and social care integration. Can I ask how that will be dealt with? If integration was written into the original contract, is it going to be achievable to complete integration with an allio dealing with care services? I am not sure that I fully understand your question. Obviously, you are moving to health and social care integration. If memory serves me well, bonacord care would account for about 10 per cent of your joint integration budget. In terms of directing bonacord care into fulfilling all the integration that will be required between the health service and care services, has the contract been set out so that that causes no difficulty whatsoever? In terms of fitting everything together, including governance, how is that going to work? We are online to achieve everything that we need to achieve in order to go live as a partnership by the first of April next year, the required date. Bonacord care is a key delivery partner to what we are doing. They deliver services on behalf of Aberdeen City Council currently. They will deliver services under the direction of the integrated joint board in the future. We are doing some work within our organisation in order to look at contractual assurance so that we are very clear about the contractual obligations to bonacord care that sit between the IJB and Aberdeen City Council. You think that you have the flexibility in the contract to be able to fulfil all aspects of integration with bonacord care so in place? Our delivery of integration, I do not think, is contingent on the bonacord care contract. One of the things that has been suggested to me is that certain things were transferred to bonacord care, certain things were left in the house, some things were split between bonacord care and Aberdeen City Council. Would that be correct? I was not working in Aberdeen at the time that the decision was made on which services would be given to bonacord care, so I am not entirely sure which ones those would have been that would have been split. In terms of occupational therapy, where does that lie at this moment between the two council and bonacord care? Occupational therapy sits across bonacord care, there are aspects of occupational therapy delivered within that. We have some occupational therapists who work within the wellbeing team and we also have occupational therapy and NHS services. It has been suggested that, at this moment in time, some folk have got three OTs and some folk have got zero OTs. Would that be the case? How can the allio contract be dealt with to ensure that folk get an OT each rather than the three OTs that may be the case at the moment? Is that a flaw in contract or is that just a flaw in the system at this moment in time? I would certainly be very interested in evidence around people having more OTs than they require. I think that I can provide you with that. That would be helpful. Obviously, we would be looking to be set up so that people have the services that are required from the right person. I thank you very much for your evidence today. Obviously, we have asked for a number of things that we would appreciate in writing. There may be more and I suspend this meeting and we move on to private session.