 Rhywbeth yw, i defnyddio i'r 22 y byd o y cyfaint cymdeithasol i weithio'r cyfrifiadau a plosdifuol argyrchu wlad cynllun i'w 2018. Felly oedd i gael cael eu gwaith pryd cwael i ddiweddolio'r cael eu gynhyrchu haf nid i'r cyflwynt yr hefyd yn siŵr. Rwy'n cael eu cyffredinol i'r cyffredinol i'r cyfaint o Gael Ross ac Stuart Stevenson. Yn y fwrdd maen nhw ymchael y gwybeth o'u cyfrifiadau, mae'n ddialweddo'r cyfaint o'i gyfrifiadau o'r cyfrifiadau. Mae Morrin wedi arddangos yn y Firen Cosmmeti, gan y dylai'r ble i fynd i gael'r adnodm gwaith yn gwaith yn y Gymru. Fy mod i'r ciliau 3 o'r ddweud iawn, Morrin. Thank you very much, chairman. I am delighted to be on the committee. Some people will know I am a farmers' doctor and my brother is still farms, but I have no financial interest in it whatsoever. I would also like at this stage to record the committee's thanks to Kate Forbes for her contribution to the committee's work during the time she was on it. I would like to now move on to agenda item 2, which is on the Transport Scotland Bill, and this is our first evidence session on the Transport Scotland Bill, and the committee will take evidence from Scottish Government officials. The evidence taking on this item will be structured in three parts today, recognising the large number of topics contained within the transport bill. Part one will cover buses and smart ticketing. Part two will cover lower mission zones and parking. And part three will cover roadworks, canals and regional transport partnerships. During the course of this meeting, Scottish Government officials will change over. I'd like to welcome for the first session from the Scottish Government, Tasha Geddy, Transport Scotland Bill Team, Peter Grant, Team Leader for Bus Policy, Gordon Hanning, the Head of Integrated Ticketing Unit, Kevin Gibson, Solista and Alison Martin, also a Solista. I'd like to move on to the first question on this, which will be from John Finnie. John. Thank you, Kevin. Good morning, panel. I'm going to ask questions about buses and smart ticketing. I'd be very keen to understand how you believe the bill will improve the provision for lifeline rural bus services, please. Sorry, I felt you were all experienced. If you just look at me, I'll call you in and then the microphone will be activated automatically for you, unless it's a logical sequence and Tasha sort of shifts the responsibility to somebody else. Peter, if you'd like to crack on on that one. Okay. Thank you, convener. Thanks for your question. The bill tries to set out new and improved options for local authorities in terms of how they address bus services in their area. There are three tools that we set out. The first one being a new partnership model. The second one being access to local franchising. That's where the local authority would compete the market for bus services at set times in the year. The third one is for local authority to run bus services directly or via arms length in the case where those are supported services, not in the case where those are commercial services. The bill also offers provisions on information for bus users so that bus operators share more information on fares, routes, timetables and so on. The last aspect is that if an operator removes or deregisters a service, the bill gives local authorities the power to ask that operator for information, patronage and revenue information on those services. All of those tools are, if you like, available to a local authority. You're interested particularly in the rural sphere so the last one I mentioned there might be... How they would enhance what is there at the moment, those references you've made please. There's quite a lot of different tools there so I might be led by you in terms of which one you're particularly interested in. What we've tried to do is improve the framework of existing options so from the 2001 Transport Act tools already exist like quality partnerships and quality contracts, we've tried to improve those and go beyond them, but also looking at direct running of bus services. I might ask the particular things that you're interested in delving into. There's a frustration that what's seen as a very good model, the Lothian bus model, is, as we understand, not an option. Perhaps you could explain what the legislative barrier to having a public operator operating on a commercial basis successfully like Lothian bus, what the barriers are and why that's not addressed in this legislation please. You're right to characterise that as not being addressed by this transport bill. Lothian buses is the only example of a municipal bus company remaining in Scotland. There are a number down south. There are companies that were put at arm's length from councils back in the 80s and through deregulation most of them were sold off to the private sector, but at that time Lothian buses were not sold off so it remains owned by the councils there. Lothian operates commercially and can compete essentially in the commercial market like a first-door stage coach. Your question is about... Why does the legislation not facilitate other local authorities responding in a similar way? I think colleagues will come on with other questions about it as it would seem. You're entirely right. Peter, if you could focus in on that because I've got Colin and Richard wanting to come in on that. Peter, do you want to answer that specific question? The reason we've focused in on supported bus services is we had a full public consultation towards the end of last year. The issues that local authorities brought to the floor were around, particularly in rural situations, cases where they already have the power to support bus services and they do that by putting them out to tender. There are cases where no bids come forward or perhaps just one bid comes forward and they're concerned that the price is high. Essentially, there's a monopoly situation there. That was the specific problem that we sought to solve with the provisions in the legislation. As you say, that's constrained to the supported service end of things, not the commercial end. Colin, do you want to come in? Richard, if I don't get it back, I might bring you back in, John. What the bill therefore does is continue a two-tier system whereby you have lowland buses being able to continue, but no other local authority can follow that model. That will clearly act as a disincentive to local authorities to set up municipal bus companies. I'm also keen to know, given the fact that you have this two-tier system, a commercial bus company would be able to bid for a franchise. I'd be helpful to know whether or not a local authority would be able to bid for a franchise. The other thing that I would add in is that SPT, already under its powers that it inherited from being a passenger transport authority, essentially those powers were transferred to SPT, already has powers to run buses and that would include in the commercial space. So far, she's not to do so. There's also an exemption in the 1985 act for islands authorities, so just to give you that information. I think that you're interested in local authorities more broadly. At that level, playing field SPT and islands, I suspect, don't cover the whole of Scotland, so I live in Dumfries and Galloway. Dumfries and Galloway Council would not be able to set up a bus company under the provisions of the law to run bus services, except for those services that currently make a loss. That's different from Lothian, so why is it not the whole of Scotland? Specifically, given that example, Dumfries and Galloway Council would be able to bid for a franchise within the area under the provision of the law that you're proposing. I suppose what I've tried to lay out there is our thinking behind the transport bill as written, which focuses on supported services. It's also fair to say, though, that since the bill going public, we have had a number of discussions with stakeholders. Engagement on this bill has been going on for a number of years now, but most recently we've had some information sessions and some one-to-one meetings. It has become apparent that there's some interest out there in certain authorities and certain stakeholder groups for a Lothian model to be possible. It's important to stress that the legislation doesn't do that as it stands, but it's something that we are certainly looking into. What considerations would we have to make around that sort of thing? Richard, there's three other members who wanted to come in. Richard, if I bring you in. A new transport bill was muted. Some of us hoped that we would improve transport and improve buses. I live in the SPT area. Sorry, it doesn't work for me or my constituents. We're not missing a trick here. I had hoped that councils could run their own services in areas where the service is poor. We've got people out there that can't get a bus after six o'clock. We've got people out there that can't get a bus in a regular time. Can we not be bold and basically allow councils even who are part in pay to SPT allowing it to come out and do a Lothian-type system? I'm not sure there's too much more I can say in terms of what the bill does and the rationale for where we are in terms of if we were looking at a Lothian-style model and a commercial model. As I say, we have had some discussions on that. We would be looking into things like competition and state aid considerations to make sure that those things were safeguarded. As I say, the work hasn't been done on it yet. Those are considerations that we would have to make. The other thing in my mind is that we wouldn't want to do anything that would undermine the Lothian model. So we're in recognition that Lothian run good buses. The situation there has come about through history, essentially involving over time. So we would want to be very careful not to undermine that with any unintended consequences. I think that we're at a slight impasse here because there seems to be some question and I think that these are probably more appropriately directed at the minister when he comes in because it is a policy. John, do you want to come back very briefly on another one? It's a very short, the committee's awareness from other work we've done that the research shows that there's a significant decline in bus numbers and that's due to increased car use, increased bus fares and increased journeys times. Is there any measures in the bowl that specifically address these issues, please? Peter, if I might start. We're very mindful of that and I think that we started at the point of looking at bus patronage which has been declining since the 60s at least. You're absolutely right to contrast car use and car ownership against that and those are the most closely correlated things when we look at trends. It's important to say that bus patronage is not uniform across Scotland. The Scotland number is very much driven by Glasgow and Strathclyde which has seen a more severe decline than other areas but even in other areas we're seeing issues with bus patronage. There's been some work done by KPMG quite recently on behalf of the Confederation of Passenger Transport trying to tease out why that patronage decline has taken place and we have a lot of discussions around that congestion is one issue that keeps coming back to us. The tools that we've put in place are put in place mindful of that. For example, the bus service improvement partnership model gives a framework and a set of tools for local authorities to work with bus operators to tackle things like congestion which get in the way of a good efficient bus service for the bus user. That's one thing that I would suggest that's in place to tackle bus patronage. We're going to come back to the bus service improvement partnerships. John, can I move on and just ask... Jamie, you had a question which would sort of roll up this so if you could perhaps try that and then we'll move on to Peter's question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I'll try and bunch some of this up and I appreciate some of these questions might be for the cabinet secretary. Obviously, you said that consultation has been taking place for quite some time on the subject. Do you have an idea of how many local authorities would actually like to set up or operate a bus service? From the consultation, we had a good view of what local authorities thought of all the tools. I've got those numbers which we can happily provide to you. It's also fair to say that we're at quite an early stage with the bill just going public. Local authorities are interested, they're interested in having a framework of tools and some of them are interested in using particular ones. We've seen from news stories, we've had individual conversations where authorities have said, yes, I would like to run bus services directly. There are other areas where there's interest but they're not fully signed up because they haven't seen the detail of the proposals through the secondary legislation. Just in general terms, just to give the committee an idea, are we talking a handful or are we talking the dozens? Just to give some context as to how relevant this piece of the bill will actually be in reality. In terms of the municipal services, I would say that there's a handful who are saying, yes, we're very interested in that. Since the bill has gone in and the discussion around the commercial end of direct running has come in, other authorities have come forward but that's really an emerging picture so I don't have a certain number on that aspect. Is it possible that the reason there's not been more interest is the fact that the bill, perhaps as Richard Lyle said, doesn't really open up adequate opportunities for them to operate viable services? My understanding around the policy notes of the bill is that they can only operate a service if there is not an existing commercial service operating so there's no competition in the market. That would therefore mean that they could only operate in what is classes unmet public transport need routes. Again, that's quite unclear as to how you define what is an unmet public transport need. Is that an area where there's no service running or is it an area where there's a poor service running or where a commercial up here has pulled out of a service, for example, which is commonplace across many of our constituencies? Is it the case that it's simply not going to be commercially viable for any local authority to operate a viable service and that's perhaps why there's been less interest than we would have imagined? What we're talking about, the ability for local authorities to run directly or via arm's length a bus service, it relates directly to the 1985 act powers around section 63 for local authorities to, as you say, to meet an unmet need. So it's something local authorities do as they meet and drink anyway. They look at their communities, they look at what bus services would be necessary to serve those adequately, if you like, and then they'll look at which services are provided commercially already and where there are gaps in their determination and unmet need. They would look to, as I said, currently, they would put the act to tender to the private sector. All we're trying to do is extend the power for them to run those services directly and we have had a number of conversations through, chiefly through, ACCO, the Association of Transport Coordinating Officers, who very much welcomed that tool and say, yeah, that's really helpful, especially in cases where we're not getting any bids for our tenders. We would like the ability to run it directly and there's some frustration that they don't have that ability currently uniformly across Scotland. We are running out of time and it's an interesting problem. It seems strange to me that we've got to where we are in this transport bill with a lot of consultation and we still haven't bottomed out what authorities want to do, what seems to be, they're now expressing a wish to do. I can't understand why that hasn't come to light earlier and maybe that's a question that we can put to the minister. I'm afraid I am going to have to move on and Peter, can I ask you to do a very succinct question on the one that you've said you want? I'll be succinct as I possibly can. It's about bus service improvement partnerships. The bill proposes the abolition of statutory bus quality partnerships and the replacement with BSIPs and we're told that a local transport authority would not be allowed to proceed with a BSIP. If a sufficient number of bus operators, that would be affected by the proposal's object to it. We're not told what a sufficient number might be but it seems to me that this just allows bus operators a veto over any BSIP proposal. If we could keep them sharp so that I can get as many answers in and as many questions so that was to you Peter and Peter, maybe have your short answer to that please. I'll try and be as quick as possible. The BSIP model essentially tries to put a framework around a negotiation so local authorities and bus operators sitting down together looking at what communities need and what is required to deliver those things. You're right to home in on the voting mechanism and this is something that will be set by regulation in terms of the detail of that but a local authority will put together a plan for a partnership over a given area. As you say, the partnership can only go ahead if the bus operators agree to it so it's very much a negotiation done in partnership where the local authority will say we want good frequent bus services, they might look at maximum fares for example and have some control over that aspect and the bus operator for their part would want perhaps action on congestion on parking and on this kind of thing. But it is important that both operators and the local authority both buy into the partnership for it to go ahead. So did you get your answer to what sufficient number means, what does it mean? Have you any idea what a sufficient number means? Your answer really confirms what I said, the bus operators in de facto do have a veto over the whole system because if they object a certain number, we don't know the number object then it doesn't go ahead. It's fair to say that if a large number of operators don't want to take part in the partnership, it can't go ahead and the local authority would be expected to look at the other options that we put forward in that case. In terms of sufficient number, that's not laid out in the primary legislation. We've looked to take a regulation making power to set that and it's quite a sensitive model to try and understand the number of operators in the area but there's also the market share. We want to work on that with local authorities and bus operators and make sure that it's set in the right level for Scotland by regulations. I fear that we're not going to get that answer until the cabinet secretary comes in. Richard, the next question is yours. I'm just sitting here thinking that if it's a devolved matter, we can amend it, we can improve it, we can change it. You've quoted the 1985 act. Let me throw another act at you. No bus quality contracts have been established since the passage of the Transport Scotland Act 2001. I think that we passed that one. Why do you think that the local service franchising proposals in the bill will meet more with success in the quality contract provision of the 2001 act? We've had a number of conversations with local authorities, RTPs and others to try and improve what was laid out as the quality contracts in the 2001 legislation. One of the things that we consulted on, which had a great deal of support, was removing the entry bar to quality contracts or to franchising, as we're calling the new thing. Previously, the formulation was that they had to be necessary to implement the relevant general policies, and that was seen as too high a bar even for the thing to be attempted. So we've worked with local authorities around the entry point, and we've lowered that bar essentially for the local authority to enter into an assessment for a franchise. It's fair to say that we have kept other checks and balances because it's such a large intervention in the market. We've had quite a lot of positive comments about the franchising offer that we put forward. A very short one, and then I'd like to move on to more. You said franchise, but you can only do a franchise if you're going to do the whole thing, but you're basically saying that councils can't. If people object, or people are running it themselves privately or it's out to a bus company. So where is the change for councils? I don't see any. I think what I need to explain more clearly is the different options that we have here. Previously, talking about partnership, yes very much, the operators have to agree to that. In the case of a franchise, that's more something that the local authority, yes, has to do a business case and has to prove that they've looked into all of the considerations around that. But the bus operators don't have to agree to it. It's a power for the local authorities to go ahead in a different direction if they wish to go down that route. I suspect Richard, when the cabinet secretary comes in, you will be grilling him and I suspect that Peter will be relaying to him the pressure he's been put under here. Maureen, the next question. I apologise to Mr Grant if he feels any pressure. I think he dealt with it very well and I noticed Gordon looking nervous because he'll be the next one up. Maureen. I'd like to ask about smart ticketing and the purpose of the smart ticketing proposals in the bill. Given that the Scottish Government already sets smart ticketing technical standards and processes for most public transport through the national concessionary fair scheme and rail franchise contracts, what's the purpose of the smart ticketing proposals in the bill? Gordon, that think is you. I think he actually summarised it very well there and what we want to do is to build on what we've already got in the concessionary travel scheme and the rail franchise. We basically want to encourage and enable a national infrastructure, a common platform that will make it easier to introduce smart ticketing and smart ticketing products in a consistent way across the whole of Scotland, regardless of whether it's the concessionary travel scheme or some other part of the public transport scheme. The proposals in the bill, as far as I can see, rely on local authorities making smart ticketing schemes. If we compare it with other countries like the Netherlands, for example, we've got a national integrated smart card scheme. We've been talking about smart ticketing and smart cards and everything for decades and nothing seems to be happening. One of my worries is that now people just swipe their card in London transport and you don't really know if you're getting the best deal on your tickets or not. There's little or no crossover still in terms of using the tram, for example, and the bus, where as in other countries you can go and use your ticket on all modes of transport. I mean, there's a slight difference. There's the ticketing system, the infrastructure that underpins it, and that's very much what the special legislation focuses on. The ticketing products, which are really fairs that might exist in paper today or in smart card today, are still largely a matter for operators. So how is this bill going to make things different and better for the passenger? We believe that we'll be creating that, or encouraging the creation of that common platform. That's what you see in any country in Europe, a consistent infrastructure for ticketing to operate on. It should make it a lot easier for operators to collaborate on providing the kinds of tickets and their system that you've just described, and also for local authorities where there's a need and a demand to create that multi-operator provision in a local area. As I go back to my point, we've been talking about it for years and the operators haven't really done anything. They haven't collaborated to make it better and easier for the passenger to use public transport. Yeah, and I think you're right. They haven't done a lot of stuff. They haven't maybe done it as quickly as we would like to see, and I think that's precisely why we want to put in place the provisions in this proposed legislation to try to inject a bit more pace into what's already happening. So we want to encourage and enable the provision of a national infrastructure, a common one, because without that you always struggle to provide something that's consistent for passengers across the whole of Scotland. We want to create a national advisory board to ministers where operators themselves and local authorities and passenger representatives can come together and say, yes, this is the right way to develop, use, advise on prevailing technology, again with a view to making all this easier. And we want to clarify the powers available to local authorities to set up local multi-operator schemes and arrangements in their areas. I'd like to bring in Colin, if I may, on that. And then there's time for one more question, and Jamie has caught my eye, so Colin, if you'd like to come in. I'm just seeking some clarity. In 2012, the Government announced that we're introducing a saltire card, a single national multi-model smart card. But what you're saying is that what you're doing now is just enabling the industry to do something. So is the saltire card now effectively bind? No, the card has been there for years. What we want to do is to make it progressively easier. For all, there's 200 bus operators in Scotland, there are 13 ferry operators, there's a tram operator, there's a subway operator, there's actually five rail operators in Scotland, and what we are trying to do is to encourage and make it easier for them to operate on a common platform. It doesn't mean that we force them all to use the saltire card, so some operators have chosen to develop their own version of the card, but what we are seeking to do, and in fact we've had a lot of success already, is to make all these cards however they're branded operating exactly the same way. So there'll be a good excuse for Stuart Stevenson to bring out the six or seven cards he brings out at every committee meeting to say that he has to use them all. Jamie, last question, and then we're going to have to move on to the next. I think that that last answer really highlights the problem. There are multiple operators all running differential screens with no standardisation on technology. It's a very confusing picture from a consumer's point of view. There are multiple cards you can get. Some people have no idea which card does water, which mode of transport or which part of Scotland you can use it in. The pricing models are different across every operator. Surely this transport bill, from a policy point of view, was an amazing opportunity to do something about that and create some standardisation from the top down, a government-led policy that takes initiative and puts an end to this hugely complex and fragmented marketplace for the consumer. Why did it not do that? I think we are trying to encourage and enable that common platform. But you're sitting up on an advisory board and you're enabling national standards. That's not to me taking the lead in solving this problem. I think we expect it to be the operators who will pay the cost of providing that infrastructure in the same way as they would put tyres on their buses, for example. We felt that it was important that the operators had a say in the technology and the migration, but technology develops very, very fast. It's both about operators, if you like, agreeing when to introduce a new type of technology and what the migration path should be towards that new technology and to advise the minister on their thoughts and all that. So we are trying to encourage and enable that national platform within this legislation. Gordon, thank you very much. I fear again that this is something that the Cabinet Secretary will be pushed harder on when he comes in. So I'm going to briefly suspend the meeting now to allow officials to change over. I'd ask members of the committee to stay in their seats. The meeting is suspended. Thank you. I'd like to reconvene the meeting and continue the evidence session on the transport bill. We're now going to look at low-emission zones and parking. Tasha, Geddy, you are staying in place, but we'd like to welcome Stephen Thompson, who is head of environmental and sustainability policy. George Henry, who is the policy manager for parking, Ann Kenes and Claire McGill, who are both solicitors. Welcome and the first question, if I get myself to the right things, I think it's from Peter. Thank you, convener. We're on LEZs now, folks. I mean, as I understand it, there are two ways to operate on LEZ. You can either take the form of a barn on certain classes of vehicle and if they do come in, there's a penalty imposed for non-compliance, or there may be a charge to enter the LEZ if the entry criteria are not met. That's the system that they have in London. Why has the Scottish Government chosen the first option? Who's going to lead Stephen Neuroff on that? We asked in the consultation back in November whether the penalty option or the charge option would be favoured. The penalty option was slightly more favourable than the charge option. The first drivers at stakeholders were asking for that. The Scottish ministers have also had a long-standing policy on road pricing, which effectively is what a charge would be. Their powers do exist for road pricing, but at this point in time, the Scottish ministers' view on road pricing was that they were not in favour. That's why the route went down for a barn. There's a third option in there, which is a ban as a form of access restriction. It prevents the dirtiest vehicles entering a space, whereas a charge would allow those dirty vehicles to enter the space if a person was willing to pay a fee. There's a fairness and equity element in that in terms of going down the ban route. I understand that. Your answer leads me on to the next question. The effectiveness of an LEZ is dependent on the scheme design. In Scottish ministers will set out the emissions standards, exempt vehicles and penalty charges and regulations rather than in the bill. Can you provide any indication at this point of what might be in those regulations with some more detail of how it can operate? We've outlined a series of proposals in the consultation. We felt that parity with other similar LEZ schemes across Europe, for example in emissions standards, going towards a Euro 6 standard for diesel, a Euro 4 standard for petrol, would provide a basis for the Scottish LEZs to be among the most ambitious in Europe. We've got a series of regulation-making powers on things such as penalties and exemptions. To give you an example of exemptions, we listed a number again in the consultation of topics such as blue badge holders or the derivative of blue badge, blue lights. We talked perhaps about vehicles that are essential services, such as road gritters, road sweepers and so on. There have been other topics that have come up in discussion with businesses that operate general services or wedding cars. Those are the types of topics that we would want to explore in the regulations for exemptions, for example. Have you any thoughts on what the penalty charges are likely to be? We've had thoughts. The top end of the charge was set by guidance from Anne in relation to what the maximum fine could be. We've included an option within the bill that there can be an escalation or surcharges of the penalty. The penalty might start at a relatively low level, perhaps akin to a speeding fine, but it can escalate depending on the number of offences. That is where we would want to take a regulation-making power. We've tried to follow where existing legislation is already in place. You might want to give examples here, but a speeding fine, as a starting point and entry point into the penalty charge, might be a reasonable place to begin, but perhaps have an escalation thereafter. I want to say a bit more on what that is, because there are different levels of speeding fine. I believe that the standard of a speeding fine would be around £60, but I don't think that we've created any kind of conclusions about what the actual fine will be. I think that it's very much going to be a process of taking the evidence as the bill goes through. Ministers will make a final decision and the regulation will set the actual amount in due course. If you come in with a vehicle that shouldn't be in an LEZ once and it's going to be £60, that seems very harsh to me, but that's just my comment. There haven't been any final conclusions taken on that. It's still a process that's being worked out, but the amount will be set in the regulations. When do you think that some of these details might be forthcoming? Have you got something at timescale to give the committee an idea about some of these details? It's very important that we know some of this. To give you a flavour of where we're at, we're starting right now to develop the outline of what regulations will look like. We don't want to be in a place where the bill goes through its due process, receives a royal assent and then only then does the regulations start being developed. It's not what the local authorities want, it's not what we want. In terms of a rough indication of timescale, it's probably between now and Christmas to develop the outline of the regulations and then after Christmas between Christmas and summer to finalise what they would look like and to handle them with what the parliamentary process identifies. I think that there's a tremendous amount of goodwill around the committee and probably around the Parliament for the intentions of an LEZ. However, there's also a huge amount of concern outside of the walls of this building, particularly amongst drivers, people who reside within potential LEZs and also around businesses that operate within LEZs. The possibility that there may be differential schemes operating different criteria, different grace periods, different exemptions on a city by city basis, do you recognise some of these concerns and what are you doing to address them? I think that that's a valid point, that the schemes in some instances could be different. We've listened to what local authorities have asked for and they've essentially asked for two things, which seem to be diametrically opposed. One, they asked for consistency in terms of emissions standards, penalties, exemption lists, but they also asked for the powers to create their own LEZ based on either the size or the scope or the timing, which is fair enough because the local authorities are best placed to understand their quality challenges as they have. I think that the point that you make is well made in terms of communicating to members of the public what the differences are. For example, we know that Glasgow is looking at a suite of vehicles within its LEZs, but if another city decides to include buses and only private cars, we have to communicate to members of the public and businesses that, for example, HGVs or light good vehicles are not included, and that's where the work has to happen during the grace periods to let those businesses and individuals know what the differences are. I appreciate the flexibility for the zones to determine, for example, geographic areas of the zones in which streets are not included or the time of day, depending on the needs of that city. However, surely a scheme that means that you can drive in one city but not in another will cause tremendous amounts of confusion for businesses and commuters. Can you also clarify if it is likely that there will be exemptions for residents and private car operators? The London scheme, for example, does offer a fairly substantial discount scheme on the opt-in version of such a zone. Do you think that it's right that people who reside within LEZs should be penalised for driving the cars to and from their place of home simply because of where they live? I think that that point about residents living in LEZs was identified during the consultation exercise. That's the reason why we've included an additional grace period in the bill, so the grace period on the face of it is for all vehicles. Then there's an additional grace period for residents who live within an LEZ, so having an additional period of time to adapt. A grace period has an end stop, so it's a temporary exemption, not a permanent exemption. Why a grace period is not a plan to provide permanent exemption for residents? The grace period is working in tandem with how the fleet looks just now versus how the fleet might look at the end of the grace period if the maximum grace period is taken. The fleet is naturally going to evolve anyway towards a Euro 6 standard and away from the older vehicles. There will be some residents who, even at the end of that grace period and extended grace period, will still have vehicles that are non-compliant, so there will be people who will have to adapt as part of the LEZ. You're talking about the benefit members of the public watching this. You're saying that people who are stuck with older vehicles, who cannot afford modern newer vehicles and rely on their vehicles, will in effect be faced with a daily fine to commute or travel around their own cities. Is that the potential scenario here? That is one scenario, yes. We'll move on to the next section, John. On parking and pavements or footpaths or footways or however we describe them. If I take my constituency, I've got quite a lot of streets where the roads are quite narrow, the pavements are reasonably wide and it makes sense to put two wheels on the pavement. The police come to community meetings and they say to residents that they should put two wheels on the pavement. That makes sense, it keeps the roads flowing, it keeps the pavements clear. Can you explain to me why we're going down this road of a blanket ban and then the councils would have to exempt certain roads rather than just saying where there is a problem, the council would have the power to ban pavement parking? George, I think that's going to come to you. Thanks for the question. When we've discussed this through our public consultation and with stakeholders, it was felt that a national ban would be the best approach because the bill requires local authorities to undertake assessments of their roads to determine which roads should be exempt for the ones that you've described. Those will be set out in the ministerial direction and collated in our parking standards document, which will identify which streets can be available for exemption. That would ensure that there is a consistency in assessment and implementation across the parking elements of this bill. The process of exempting streets will be set out in regulations that are made under section 44 of this bill. I just wonder if it wouldn't have been easier for a council to list the streets where parking is not allowed in the pavement. Will it not be more on earth than the councils to list the streets where it is allowed in the pavements? From our discussions with local authorities, it was certainly felt that because the number of streets that will be exempt will be lower than where the actual problems are, where everyone is parking on pavements where they don't want it to exist, it's deemed an easier approach for local authorities because they will promote exemptions on a smaller number of streets than it would be the other way around. Can you tell me in a slightly different angle that there is already a ban on driving on pavements? I have always wondered that myself, because clearly if you put two wheels on the pavement you are driving on the pavement. Is that not already banned? No, it's not illegal to park on a footway as it stands. It's illegal to drive on one. Now, granted, you have to drive on one to get your car there, but certainly that is why it's created an issue with people parking on footways. It causes great difficulties for some road users and vulnerable road users, but that is why we are seeking to iron that problem out and make it clear that it is illegal to park on a footway. I understand that, in some areas, it would be the council that would enforce, and I am right in saying that, in some areas, it would be the police that would enforce. In both cases, would there be any penalty on a council that ignores it and allows parking on pavements, or would there be some force on the council or the police to enforce it? The bill confers the powers to follow 32 local authorities to enforce the new restrictions on pavement and double parking. It will be up to the local authority to identify how it wishes to carry out that enforcement, but there is a commitment to an annual report, which we will be putting before the Scottish Parliament, to identify the successes of the bill or otherwise and to identify which local authorities are carrying out their duties appropriately. I am going to bring Richard in briefly. If I have time, John, I will come back to you. In my constituency, I have pavements where they are quite large. In both sides, some streets are quite big. I agree with John that some streets are quite narrow, and there is going to be a problem in some areas. I agree with what I call cul-de-sacs, where you can only drive into the hammerhead and all the way back out to the verse or whatever. The question that I want to ask you is, do councils have to consult regarding exemptions on a pavement? Can the council amend this as it is on-going over the years? Can the public contact—is there going to be a system where the public say a street can contact a petition in the council to amend and allow them to pavement park? I welcome this bill. I think that it will be good for people who are wheelchairs and especially the young families and people with prams. I support people parking on the pavement, but sadly, as John says, there are occasions where you just cannot go anywhere else. Local authorities will undertake their assessments as part of the provisions in the bill. They will be required when identifying streets that can be exempt that they will be identified through our parking standards document. As I said earlier, section 44 will confer on ministers the powers to set out regulations through the process of exemptions. We are discussing that with local authorities at our parking stakeholder working groups at the moment. We realise that there will be historic streets that may not necessarily lie within the criteria, and we will need to consider those as we go through that process. I think that what we are trying to do is to fix irresponsible parking first and foremost, but to work with local authorities because they know the streets at best so that we can get the best model to fix the problem, support the policy and assist in parking provisions for local authorities. George, can I just ask you a question? In the background reading that I was doing, which document raids for all, good practice guides for raids published in July 2013 by Transport Scotland, which I'm sure you know your way around. Absolutely. It lists footway widths and it talks about ramps and blistering to allow people to identify where there's crossover points. Is this whole document going to have to be rewritten in light of areas where there is going to be allowed on-street parking to allow people to move from one side of the road to the other in the situation where Richard was mentioning that it might be a requirement for people to park on pavements? That document won't need to be rewritten, no. What we are doing is working on our parking standards document with a range of stakeholders, including local authorities, COSLA, Living Streets, etc. We are working in partnership with those to discuss the footway widths where we can allow footway parking on. It would very much—the early discussions are that it would support the roads for all guidance, so say for example, around about two metres is the sort of narrowest footway that we need that would allow two wheelchairs to pass, a double buggy, etc. Therefore, as we develop the parking standards document with our stakeholders, we will very much take a license of that document and work through it. If you have a two metre width walkway on one side of the road, you might not need a two metre walkway width on the other side, but good practice dictates that it shouldn't be less than 1.5, and it doesn't stipulate whether it's on both sides of the road or on one side of the road. That's correct. I mean it. What we would look at in working with local authorities and when they are doing their assessments, they are obviously best placed to assess their streets and know what is best for that area. It may be a case that they could allow a narrower footway on one side, providing the crossing points are remain free and that people can pass from one side of the street to the other as in a safe as possible manner. Can you tell me why the bill doesn't propose a ban on parking in front of dropped kerbs? That's an issue particularly important to people who have mobility impairments. Yes, it certainly is a problem. We're currently discussing with stakeholders what drop kerbs could be in scope to be included. When we're doing that, we will identify if we can take these forward under secondary legislation and that is currently the plan. There will be discussions that have taken place, so no crossing points, where there is tactile paving for visually impaired, etc. There will be a national ban there as well, but we are looking to take that forward under secondary legislation. Is there a difference between a drop kerb to allow somebody to get their car into the front of their house compared to a narrower bit where people with wheelchairs or buggies can cross? It's identifying the difference between a crossing point or a domestic driveway. One of the big things that we have considered with stakeholders as we've worked through this policy is the displacement of vehicles and what impact that will have. For instance, if we have many housing estates or many streets where you have a one-vehicle driveway but there are maybe two or three car families, there could be the opportunity that they can still park in front of their driveway. As long as the crossing points and non-crossing points for wheelchair users or visually impaired are still free, then there is still a safe mechanism for them to cross the street. We're all interested in effective legislation and certainly not ineffective legislation. I refer to section 47, subsection 6 of the bill. To me, this section, as it's written, could drive a coach and horses through the purposes of the bill as far as parking on paths. It says, the parking prohibitions do not apply where the motor vehicle is in the course of business being used for the purpose of delivering goods to or collecting goods from any premises or being loaded from or unloaded to any premises and the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary for the delivery collection loading or unloading and in any event for no more than a continuous period of 20 minutes. Now, I can see this as a coach and horses. Where you put no more than 20 minutes will become a standard practice. In other words, if someone's trying to enforce this, I can see the result. Oh, I'm allowed to do here for 20 minutes. And what then happens, another vehicle arrives for unloading or collecting goods. Oh, I can stay for 20 minutes. And whereas the Lord at the moment says a vehicle that is doing this has to be accompanied by the driver or a passenger or somebody in that vehicle, they can wander off. And I'm very concerned for vulnerable users of all footpaths, whether they're disabled or mums or dads with prams or whatever, that the road, the path is then blocked. And we're welcoming all bill to make sure that people don't park and have this, people can have this free access. And this, to me, section 47, drives a coach and horses through the whole thing. If it just stopped section C, which said loading and unloading, and then removed any event for no more than a period of 20 minutes, that would be helpful. But the way this is written is a coach and horses. I'm coming to that, Jeremy. If the Government doesn't amend it, I certainly will try. Yes, Mike. Thanks for the question. It's something that we've been discussing with stakeholders since obviously the bill has been published. You're right to point out that a delivery vehicle may park on a footway during its course of business whilst loading and unloading. If it cannot reasonably be done without parking on a footway. Therefore, just to clarify that, they should seek to find a parking space or a loading bay, first and foremost, and if only then that they cannot find one, can they park on a footway? Parking on a footway doesn't necessarily mean that they should be causing an obstruction. Automatically, there is law at the moment that you shouldn't be causing an obstruction. Therefore, we are looking to identify exactly within the parking standards document what should be accepted or otherwise. But we are not promoting anybody blocking a footway for any vulnerable road user going around their duty. It's trying to strike the balance between keeping the pavements on footways and roads safe as possible, but also allowing businesses to operate and keep the economy going, et cetera. But we have the same interests. Everybody's agreement with what you've just said. That's the aim, the point I am making is our job is to look at legislation that you present to us and look at the problems with it and see, and I've identified this as a really big problem because this gives the opportunity. It's all very well for what you're saying, but in defence, a lawyer will just turn round and say it, but the bill says I'm allowed to stay here for 20 minutes, and it doesn't say I've got to allow a gap for somebody through. It says I can do this and loading and loading for 20 minutes. And in fact, the next guy can do the same thing. If what we're trying to do is to achieve the objective, this needs to be rewritten. There is already primary legislation in place that doesn't allow people to cause an obstruction, so that can be picked up in current legislation. This bill actually looks at provisions under obstruction and all the other irresponsible parking methods that happen. Against prosecution, this is a legal defence, and if I were looking at this, I'd be saying, my goodness, I'm not going to be prosecuted about this because it's clearly in the legislation, the law that we're going to be passed going to allow us to do it. George, you can come back. I mean, I'm going to make the observation that we as a committee will get the chance to question our other witnesses when they come in on this very subject. Because I think the point that might make everyone around in the committee probably has some sympathy with it in the sense that, you know, if it's 20 minutes and you sit there in your lorry, if you move it forward 1.5 metres, does that mean you're in a different parking space and therefore, you know, you're not causing an obstruction and therefore the 20 minutes starts again? I think there are all sorts of valid questions here. George, it'd be interesting for you just to give a small answer and for us, perhaps my, to quiz more people on this as the evidence session takes place. Thanks, convener. We are discussing this continually with stakeholders as part of the parking standards working group. However, to just be clear, they do need to try and find a car parking space or a loading bay to carry out that duty first and foremost and it will be down to the enforcement officers to, you know, efficiently enforce this to ensure that there is no disrepute being taken forward. And then just to reiterate again, there is other legislation in place, currently, as it stands, that they shouldn't be causing an obstruction. I'm sure, in fairness, that there are lots of parking enforcement officers that will be easy to do but in more remote places may be difficult. Richard, come in, if you may, and then we're going to have to move on to the next point. A quick question, does this bill also apply to car parks where we often go into a car park and somebody's stupidly, but they've paid their entrance fee or whatever, it's parking on a pavement, it's not a designated space. I know you may say, well, it's up to the company that owns that car park, do something about it, but does this bill cover that? No, this bill only covers on-street parking. Thank you for clarifying that. I'm now going to briefly suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses. Okay, I'm now going to reconvene the meeting and we're going to move on to the third session this morning on the Transport Bill and we're going to look at roadworks, canals, regional transport partnerships. Tasha, you have sat through all three sessions so I'm not going to welcome you again. Cat Quay, thank you, policy officer of roadworks. John Gray, policy manager of regional transport partnerships. Chris Wilcox, the head of ports, shipping freight and canals. Kevin Gibson and Claire McGill, both solicitors. So, the first question, when we move to that section of it, is Colin. Thank you very much, convener. Can I start by asking a question on the issue of roadworks and specifically what circumstances would you anticipate the Scottish Roadworks Commission are using the proposed inspection powers within the bill? The specific context that the commissioner would use is inspection powers. At the moment, roads authorities can do an inspection regime against undertakers. The commissioner obviously has to look at both sectors, the roads authorities and also the utilities. So he can look at either one, he can do information gathering, he can do specific site inspections. At the moment, he does have a limited range of compliant powers, he can issue fines, but he doesn't actually have any powers at the moment to be able to address things on site as they arise or if there's a specific issue that happens that needs a quick resolution. So it would be in the context of that. Just following that, how do you anticipate the compliance notice regime working in practice given the limited resources that the commissioner has and the limited existing powers? There would have to be a review of the office and the functions of the commissioner's office by Transport Scotland that was done in 2016 that identified that he had this limitation, that he didn't have these powers to directly go and find evidence himself. That identified that there would possibly have to be an expansion of the office to cover an inspection function, so it wouldn't necessarily be the inspector himself going out and doing these inspections, he would need inspectors that would act for him. How does the bill improve, if you look at road works, improve circumstances for disabled people when road works have been carried out? Is there any provisions within the bill that makes improvements here? I also do specifically on the safety of street works and road works code of practice. Am I right in saying that this is legally binding in the rest of the UK but it's purely a code of practice in Scotland? Why is that the case? Why is it not enforceable? Why is it legally binding in Scotland but it's in the rest of the UK? Should that be tackled in the bill? That's absolutely right. The safety of street works and code of practice for every other part of the UK is legally binding for road authorities, highway authorities and undertakers. In Scotland it only applies to the undertakers. The history to why that is, I'm not entirely sure, perhaps Kevin could answer. It's before my time. One of the things that the bill does is it puts that on a statutory footing for road authorities as well. There's also changes to the number of qualified operatives that you'd need on a site and the type of qualifications that we'd need, the street works character as we call it. Sorry, you looked for help on that and Kevin almost looked away but do you want to add something to it? I can't speak to the history of why the code is binding in England and Wales and not here. What I can say is that evidence of compliance with the code in Scotland is evidence that you've complied with the duties. The converse is, to some extent, the case. Evidence that you haven't complied with the code is evidence that you haven't complied with the duties. It has an element of a legal effect here but it's not completely binding as it is in England and Wales. Was there a reason why we didn't make it binding as part of the transport bill? The provisions in the current bill are to make the red book, as we call it, the safety code mandatory for road authorities. The original safety code was endorsed by the Scottish Executive. It's a very old document so I don't know why that didn't happen at the time but the provisions in the bill as it stands is to make that applicable to road authorities. In the HSE enforce it in that way as well. That's the standard that they look to. On regional transport partnership finance, I understand that, rather than the actual expenses being shared around the constituent councils, it will be estimated costs in future. That presumably would mean that if the expenses were slightly lower, there would be a fund left over and the partnership could carry that forward. What happens if there's a deficit? Would it carry the deficit forward or would that be dealt with in some different way? At the moment, the bill doesn't provide for a deficit and at present the RTPs do not carry a deficit. It will have to have a zero balance at the end of each financial year. While in practice that seems quite difficult, what normally would happen is that any X6 funds would be transferred to one of the constituent councils of our partnership. At the start of the following financial year, that would come back to the partnership. So they are effectively lent to the council at the moment or that's the future plan? No. At the moment, the funds transfer to a particular council in an RTP and it then comes back. I don't know if it's a loan. It's not that the money is handed back in Strathclyde's case to whatever it is nine local authorities and then we start again the new year fresh. A, I'm trying to clarify the difference between what's going to happen now that didn't happen in the past. As I understand it, the aim is to allow them to carry forward XS funds. It's just to make it a little less clumsy than it is now. It's just to create that extra flexibility so that there is no transfer of funds. It will just be that the funds will sit where they are. Presumably it is possible that they could have a deficit because they have to overspend on the subway or something. In that case, would they then, by 31 March, have to get more money from the councils or could they carry that deficit forward and hopefully make it up the following year? Up until now they haven't carried a deficit. We wouldn't envisage that they would carry a deficit. According to my local government finance colleagues, it's not good practice to carry a deficit. It hasn't happened up until now, so I can't answer that question. Jeremy, you had a question on this. Do you think that that's sufficiently answered it partially? Perhaps I could just follow on from Mr Mason's line of questioning around cairing over funds. I believe that the legislation will now enable regional transport partnerships to borrow money and, by default, I suspect, accumulate debt as a result of the borrowing. Given some of the other elements of the bill that allow for greater opportunity, for example, to set up bus franchises and other types of public services, is there any worry that, given the RTP's ability to borrow funds on the wider market, in effect, given that they are funded by local authorities, what you're creating is an opportunity for local authorities to accumulate debts, to fund infrastructure or subsidise public transport. What's the policy rationale behind this, perhaps? The RTP's have actually had borrowing power since the 2005 act. What we're doing in this act is making more responsibility on the RTP's to comply with the regulations that came in in 2016. Up until now, we aren't aware that there has been a problem with that. RTP's are required by a suite of local government financial regulation to ensure that they can afford whatever they borrow. Ultimately, they are accountable to their boards, to their constituent councils and Audit Scotland. Are there any additional duties in terms of how RTP's will be structured, monitored, managed in the future or is there just an effect legislation that is just thinking around the financials as opposed to the structures of RTP's? Is there any discussion about whether the bill could look at the wider issue of the success or lack of of RTP's? No, this bill isn't looking at that. It is just really a technical amendment to allow that flexibility for the... There are other pieces of work on going at the moment, for example, the national transport strategy review, which is looking at such issues on the future of transport governance in Scotland. We're now going to move on to the next question, which Mike is itching to ask. I want to ask about canals. They may be at the end of this session, but they're really important. I'm well aware of the work that's been done on canals running into the city of Edinburgh, the canal festivals, and they're really regenerative of whole areas. It's a very positive thing that's been happening. Recently, there have been problems when the canals have been blocked. In the bill, we've got a section really tinkering. We're looking at changing the numbers on the board. Are there any concerns that the Government has about the backlog of maintenance? What about a duty that is placed on the board to make sure that our canals are navigable and kept open, because this would be an opportunity to do this? It's worth saying that, in relation to what's in the bill itself, it's really a technical point to give ministers the flexibility to alter the structure of the board in the future if they chose to do so. At the moment, when the board was set up, it was restricted to six, mainly to take the organisation forward following separation in 2012. Some discussions we've had just now around some of the complexities and the opportunities facing the canals have suggested that we might want to look at how we vary and give flexibility to bring in additional expertise, or indeed to reflect some of the expertise from the executive team that might be there, and that's what we would take forward. That's very much what we're looking to do in the bill. In relation to the other things that you mentioned, there is already legislation out there in terms of the 62 act and the 68 act that sets out how canals are supposed to operate and have provisions within them as to what Scottish canals are supposed to do in order to keep the canals open to all users. We are working very closely with them in relation to the challenges that we have seen in recent times. That has been partly addressed through some additional funding that Transport Scotland and Scottish ministers have been able to give. We are also looking at how we can help them with funding on other areas in the future. One of the things that we have—I think that it's important to highlight—is that the work that they've undertaken, that has identified the asset management backlog, is a responsible piece of work that they've done. The assets are ageing, they are complex, and it's important that they have an understanding of the work that they need to do to make sure that the structures are there for the future. The little point was the bill that you referred to, the 62 act. As I understand it, there is no requirement for the board to ensure that the canals are navigable. That's my question. Should we not be using this transport bill as an opportunity to give that responsibility to the enlarged board to ensure that all Scottish canals are kept navigable? My understanding is that the existing legislation does have a responsibility for the canals to be kept navigable. That's my understanding of how the legislation is based at the moment. Can we just check that and let us know? I think that one of the issues that has been mentioned to various people is the issue that the canal board is investing in properties such as holiday let-ins and shops and things such as that, rather than investing in canals. I think that it would be useful for the committee to have some feedback on that. Chris, I'll let you come back on that. That's been a point that's been raised with us and engagement with stakeholders, particularly in light of the challenge that we have at the moment. I've asked Scottish canals to actually undertake a piece of work on that because that challenge has been put to them a number of times that they're spending money and attention on non-canal related activities. I think that what's important to note is that the income generated from those non-canal activities or related activities actually do come back in on both on an annual basis and, indeed, in growing the investment that they have to support the canals going forward. I've asked them to do some work on that to make those points clearer to people because I think that it's important that that is recognised. All businesses know that the core asset is what you invest in, not necessarily the ones that generate long-term income. I'll leave it there if I may. I'd like to thank all of those who've given evidence this morning on the three panels. Tash, there are various questions that we didn't get through, which is very much where I anticipated we'd be at the end of the meeting. The clerks will, subject to everyone agreeing, submit those questions to you and the committee would ask that you respond to them through the clerks just so we can get an indication of, sorry, get your answers to those questions as we go forward. I'm actually going to ask you to remain in place while we deal with the next item of business, because after that we'll be moving into private session and it doesn't seem appropriate to break. We're going to move on to agenda item 3, which is subordinate legislation, and that is the consideration of one negative instrument on the scalpy scallops. The instrument grants an exclusive right to fish for scallops in the area of scalpy island near the Isle of Skye. The Scottish Government wrote to the committee to clarify several points which I've raised as the committee convener. We have received no motions to annul in relation to this instrument. Is the committee agreed that it doesn't wish to make any recommendation in relation to this instrument? That is agreed. Thank you for that. The committee will now move into private session. Could I ask committee members to take a five minute break and then return to their seats? Thank you.