 Felly, rydyn ni'n addysg o'i cwmwylltol i ddod o'r rai cyfnodau ar gyfer, ac mae'n cwmwylltol i ddod o'r pwlethau cyfnodau a'r byw i ddod o'r rhaglion o'r perthymde i ddod o'r rai cyfnodau. Efallai mae oedd ddod o'r cyfnodau o'r cyfnodau o'r cyffredinol, ac mae'r cofnodau i ddod o'r cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol i ddod o'r cyffredinol o'r cyfnodau. that, if amendment 68 is passed, the Government will consult with local authorities and local transport agencies over this particular requirement and I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond to this particular point when it sums up. However, on balance, I support amendment 68. I believe that the best way forward is to ensure that amendment 67 in my name and Michael Matheson's amendment 68 is agreed to and we use stage 3 to tidy up the final word and the knowledge that the principle of municipal bus services is enshrined in the bill. That would mean voting no to amendment 66, recognising that the first line in my amendment 67 is exactly the same as the whole of amendment 66 anyway, and I would urge members to vote in that way. Thank you, Colin. John Finnie, can I ask you to speak to amendment 39 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Can I start by saying that I absolutely concur with everything that my colleague Colin Smith said in relation to this. This is an issue that I am sure all of us receive inquiries about constituency inquiries, the frustrations that there are about bus services. We know the regard that people have for the Lothian buses and I accept that that is an arms-length company. I have to say, so I am not going to repeat much of what Colin Smith said. The public does not necessarily understand all our procedures, but as things stand, I would certainly be lending my support to Colin's amendment 68, and indeed the Cabinet Secretary's amendment 68, with all the caveats that Colin has mentioned there. Much of what we have heard, I have heard a lot of those arguments in relation to the running of our ferries, Clyde and Hebrides ferries. Those very same arguments have been trotted out. One argument that I find quite surprising, and I think that local authorities would have caused to take offence about, was the question of transparency. Who, for one minute, suggests that every penny of public money that the local authority has is not accounted for? That really is a preposterous suggestion. I think that this is not an easy route ahead. The suggestion of the competition and marketing authority stated rules, as I said, there is nothing there that I have not heard in relation to the Clyde and Hebrides, which is very successfully run in the public interest, exclusively in the public interest, not the obligation to do that. There is nothing wrong with that, but the statutory obligation of any commercial organisation is to maximise profits for its share holders. That is why we get to the situation that the member would. Are you saying that, in contrast to what the Cabinet Secretary has said, that it is your view that if we do not pass 66 but go for 67 and 68, then the state aid rules is something of a red herring? Is that what you are saying? The member talked earlier on about evidence. This is the first that has been mentioned in relation to this particular piece of legislation. It is not that. I think that I have said and you will be aware, Mr Rumbles, that it has been said in relation to our ferry network. I am not concerned about that. We get to the situation where we get advice on amendments that are put in. Colin very concisely said what my amendment is. It is by its very nature just doing something very simple, and that is lifting the ban that was previously imposed. The public want the busses run. I think that we should afford our local authorities opportunity to do that, so I will not be supporting amendment 66. I will be supporting amendment 66, which I recognise will mean that my amendment will not be, but this is not about individuals, this is not about the party, this is about giving the public the best possible means of transportation, and that is done if things are run exclusively in the public interest and not for profit. Thank you. I have some members who wish to speak in the debate. Richard Law followed by Jeremy Greene. Thank you, convener. People are going to claim credit for this, but some of us have been putting forward this proposal for years. As a councillor, I put forward that our council, North Lancer, should be running busses, and other councillors have done it for years. We should have similar to what is in Lothian busses, and how did Lothian busses come about? It is because they kept their head under the parapet and didn't sell it is where other people sold off their bus services. I personally thank the cabinet secretary for listening to members like me and to other members in this committee. Bus companies, as far as I am concerned, should not feel under threats, but one small move has basically answered the call by many people in this country that the bus services should be for the people, should be run for the people and should accommodate the people. Bus companies do not be fearful, but, as far as I am concerned, if they are not running a bus service to suit the people of this country, the council should. Thank you, Richard. Jeremy Greene followed by me. Thank you, convener. It has been a really interesting debate. My colleagues and I have been looking at—perhaps rather confusedly—it is a very technical piece of legislation, this whole bill, this whole part on buses, and I appreciate it. It is about understanding what the amendment actually does, as opposed to just the general concept. I could easily say that I support the notion of local authorities running services that are not just unmet need services. It is very positive that the cabinet secretary has responded to the stage 1 report. We did talk about it a lot. There was a general feeling that the idea that local authorities could only run unprofitable routes seemed a bit crazy. There had been no incentive for them to do so, and the local authorities that I have spoken to had no interest in doing that. They are very happy to subsidise where it is appropriate, but the idea that we were restricted in any way to run services only on unmet need was not attractive to them. I think that what the cabinet secretary does with amendment 68, and I am pleased to support it, is because it sets up a framework that allows local authorities to set up a company in a due process to participate in franchise arrangements and participate in bids and tenders like any other operator could. That is an appropriate way to do it, but I wonder if that is the only way that they can do it. I do not know if 67 does or does not do this, but I think that what Colin Smyth is getting at is that there may be local authorities that are not suited to be placed to go through the same honours process as the Lothian model. The Lothian model we accept is a good one, but it is not right for every local authority. There will be local authorities who have either a couple of buses or have an arrangement to lease buses from whichever source and would like to set up a service and run a franchise, but they will not have the ability to do that under the proposed approach. Amendment 66 simply leaves out section 3 of section 28 of the bill. What Colin Smyth is trying to do is agree that section 3 is removed, but I add in some positive language that includes councils. I do not think that the bill flags up anywhere to me that by passing 67 we would be in a situation where local authorities would be breaching EU state aid rules or would come into the full force of the CMA. We have not heard any evidence to support that, I am afraid. Unfortunately, the cabinet secretary did not give any substantive evidence. He claimed that it would be the case, but I cannot see how the wording of 67 would make that happen. Indeed, if anything, if it is not quite technically correct, the cabinet secretary has an excellent team of lawyers who can help to correct that before stage 3. However, I would be minded to support 67 on the premise that it gives local authorities a little bit of additional flexibility that they need to run local services in the way that they deem fit. For that reason, I would be happy to support either 67 or 39, which everyone was pushed. Mike Rumbles I think that this debate has been really useful. I think that there is a very positive amendment that the minister has brought forward. I also think that there is a very positive amendment that Colin Smyth has brought forward. Correct me if I am wrong, but 66, by pre-empting 67, what 66 does is allow local authorities to set up arms length companies to run. What 67 does is allow that to happen, but 67 and 68 allows that to happen, but also allows local authorities to run their own bus services. On the basis that I think that that is the right approach, and I am just worried about state aid rules, because what the minister and I do understand is what the minister has said, and that this is a stage 2. The minister is able, at stage 3, to convince the Parliament if he is convinced that this would be wrong at stage 3 to address that. So I am willing to, because of the preemption, to vote again 66 and 467 and 68 when the vote comes. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to wind up please? Can you let me pick up on a couple of the points that members have made? The first thing is that a local authority operating a bus service does not do in a vacuum, do so in a vacuum. It must be within the unregulated market, which is what we have for bus services at the present moment, which is why services need to operate in that space, and that is why the competition and markets authority say that they must operate on an arms-length basis in order to make sure that they comply with the necessary competition law in those areas. Alongside that, that is why there is also need to make sure that there is a framework, to make sure that they remain on the right side of state aid rules in these matters, to ensure that they do not find themselves on the wrong side of state aid rules by failing, to make sure that they have the proper arrangements in place for operating their own services. A number of points have been made by members. First of all, for example, Colin Smith made reference to the possibility of a local authority who may have two or three buses that want to run them on a particular route that may be profitable. It can do exactly that right now if they choose to do so, if there is an unmet need there. Whether that be commercially viable or not is another matter. If it is one that is profitable, it can choose to do so, if there is an unmet need there and there is no other commercial operator choosing to do so. What the Government is creating is that it takes away that particular restriction, which the committee has to be removed, so that local authorities are choosing to operate bus services in competition. They do so within a framework that keeps them within the competition and markets authority rules around those matters and state aid rules as well. I am happy to give way to Colin Smith in his point again. Does the cabinet secretary not... I mean, he was very clear there in his second part that a local authority could only run a bus directly if there was an unmet need now. We still have a definition of what that may mean, but my instinct is that that is a route that does not make any profit at all. You do not understand though that where you have a small number of buses, a local authority may run services into a rural area every two hours, for example, because that is all that there really is, any possibility of actually having passengers. In-between time, they may want to run a bus in a route that may actually have a small surplus, therefore it will not meet the criteria for unmet need. It may very well be that there is a commercial company that runs that bus in that particular route or something very similar to that particular route, but not all the particular stops. It is allowing local authorities to have that flexibility without putting that restriction on in terms of unmet need. Simply saying that you can only have that if you set up an entirely arms-length company is not the type of flexibility that we should be trying to have. Let me just be clear here to Mr Smith then. Are you saying that if there is a commercial operator on an existing route that a local authority should be able to use those two or three buses to go into competition with them to do so? Presumably, the cabinet secretary is saying that an arms-length council company could go into competition with a commercial company is what the cabinet secretary is saying. I am saying that a local authority may, in a small number of cases, run a bus in a similar route to a commercial company, maybe at different times, for example. I see that as no different at all from what the cabinet secretary is saying, an arms-length company will be allowed to do. The point here is that they do not operate in a vacuum, they have to operate within a competitive market. Therefore, if local authority are utilising its resources for the provision of a bus service to commercially challenge a commercial operator, that is when you start to arrive into issues around competition and markets authority challenges and issues relating to state aid, the use of public money for the purposes of a commercial advantage over a commercial operator. That is why the loading model provides a model that overcomes that particular option. For example, if there is a route in a local authority area just now where a local authority has two or three buses, where there is no commercial operator on it at the present time, where they choose to run that service, whether it makes a profit or not, they are perfectly free to do so because there is an unmet need there to have access to public transport. However, if there is a commercial operator on it and you allow local authority to go into direct competition with them without the proper framework in place, they could find themselves in breach of state aid rules and also on the wrong side of the CMA because it is an unfettered advantage that they have over a commercial operator by the use of public money in that way. If a local authority runs a bus currently where there is no commercial service and a commercial company decides that they believe that there is a commercial opportunity there and they are running competition to that local authority, would that be acceptable? At present time, because of the way that the law is, they would have to do no longer— I am in the legislation, would that be acceptable in the legislation? With the amendment that we are putting to the bill, it will allow them to have a loading model where they could actually do exactly that. Can I come back in that point? I just seek clarity on the particular point that if a local authority runs a service directly where there is an unmet need and a commercial company comes along and runs a service in that area, by definition that is no longer an unmet need and the local authority would therefore have to withdraw their service because the commercial company would have effectively determined that there was a service being provided. As the law stands at the present moment and as the committee asks for that restriction to be removed, that is exactly what amendment 66 does. It allows the local authority to operate on that particular route if they choose to do so. I am trying to let a free-freight going here, but there are two people going at the same time. John Finnie was first and then John Mason wants to come in, cabinet secretary, saying that it is up to you if you want to take the intervention but if you want the first one would be true. I am not more than happy to take the interventions. Thank you, convener. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. Is it the cabinet secretary's position that amendments 67 in Colin Smyth's name and 39 in my name are incompetent to our ultravarious? Would he also accept that not everyone is enthusiastic, albeit that we are like the Lothian model, about arms-length organisations because they lose the direct democratic accountability that is direct running by this, and we know that in various spheres of local government? I am surprised at the nature of his question, because when I have been in this committee here before, I am sure that Mr Finnie and others have been saying that councils should be able to do the Lothian model, and that they should be in a position where they can actually set up a loading model. If they choose to do so, at no point has Andy said to me that the Lothian model doesn't provide democratic accountability. Actually, the benefit and the reason why people are saying that we should be the Lothian model is because it provides that. That is exactly what amendment 66 provides for. Safe to be able to get a moving target here in the matter. Not at all. Is it the cabinet secretary's view that arms-length organisations have the same level of democratic accountability as local authority departments? No, they don't, but they are accountable to local authority. I do not know if the member suggests that we should abolish the Lothian model. Sorry, just before this becomes too stuck in one direction, could I try and encourage the cabinet secretary to bring in John Mason and then try and make a bit of headway on it? I think that you have answered Mr Finnie as much as he is going to get an answer. Maybe you could, cabinet secretary, look to John Mason and then make some headway. On Colin Smyth's line of questioning. If I am understanding you correctly, cabinet secretary, but we could just clarify, the legal position is quite different depending on whether a local authority was running its own bus service or it has an arms-length company or similar, which we would be running it even though that company is owned by one or more local authorities. That is the reason for the issue, that the legal requirements and the legal position are quite different in those two. They are not the same. Is that correct? That is correct. Cabinet secretary, I think that you should make some headway if you can. The member also raised the issue of providing protection to the Lothian bus model and the exemption. The Scottish Government amendment does that. It provides that exemption so that it is a protected arrangement as it stands at the present time, which I hope meets with Mr Finnie's approval on that particular issue. The other thing is that, convener, it is important to recognise that, going back to the point that John Mason is making, is that any local authority operating a bus service does not do so within a legal vacuum. There has to be a framework there in which for them to operate within the commercial sector. That is exactly what amendment 66 delivers, to ensure that we comply with what would be necessary from the CMA and to ensure that there is a contravention of state aid rules for any local authority establishing a commercial bus operation to deliver services in that area. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Before we vote on amendment 66, I would like to remind members that, if amendment 66 is agreed, I cannot call amendments 67 and 39 because of a preemption. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. The result of that vote is that there were five votes in favour. There were six votes against, therefore amendment 66 is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 67, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 66. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. I would remind members that, if amendment 67 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 39 because of a preemption. The question therefore is that amendment 67 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. The result of that vote are the six votes in favour. There are five votes against, therefore amendment 67 is agreed. We therefore will move on to the next section, which is on bus service provision of local services by community bodies. I would like to call amendment 230, in the name of Neil Bibby, grouped with amendments 248, 248A and 249. Neil Bibby, could you please move amendment 230 and speak to the other amendments in their group, please? Thank you, convener, and good morning to you and the rest of the committee and the minister. I'll move amendment 230 and speak to the other amendments in the group, 248 and 249, alongside amendment 248A, in the name of Jamie Greene. Those amendments on community transport or community empowerment are supported not just by the Labour Party but by the Scottish Cooperative Party too, which I declare I am a member of. Each seeks to bring co-operative values of community and democracy to the bill. Right now, transport legislation is weighted towards shareholders and profit extractors. The amendments in this group would give communities more of a say over bus services in their area. I will deal with each in turn. Section 28 of the bill has introduced and inserts a new section into the Transport Scotland Act 1985, which allows local authorities to become providers of last resort. Cooperative MSPs consider that a step forward for communities left behind by failures in the bus market. Amendment 230, however, goes further. Section 28 would be amended to give local authorities the option of also asking community transport bodies to act as a provider, where local circumstances dictate and it is required to fulfil a public transport requirement. That would recognise the role community-owned operators could have in securing bus services where the market has failed. Amendment 248 requires Scottish ministers to make regulations creating a scheme that would allow for the operation of a bus route to be transferred to a community transfer body. That would be a similar process to transfers conducted under the Community Empowerment Act. We know that the bus market is changing and evolving, and it is important that bus services meet the needs of the community now and in the future. Subsection 2 allows ministers to make the necessary changes to the Community Empowerment Act to allow that to happen and subsection 3 sets a timescale for such regulations to be made. Those regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. The Scottish Co-operative Party believes that the operation of a bus route should serve more than the interests of the operator. Bus services should serve the interests of passengers and the wider community, and that is a point that the committee has made consistently. One way of ensuring that bus services serve the interests of the community is to allow the community to take responsibility for a service or a route. That is the principle behind the amendment. In my area of the country, we already have community transport companies running scheduled bus services. How does that interact with that clearly existing provision? Obviously, in some areas there are community transport organisations running, but in many parts of the country there are not. Those sets of amendments are about ensuring that there are greater rights and greater responsibility to promote community transport throughout Scotland. The amendment grants the Scottish Government regulation making powers to put that principle into practice. Amendment 248A, in the name of Jamie Greene, proposes instead of a requirement that ministers must make regulations for such a scheme. They may make regulations for such a scheme. That would still grant ministers regulation making powers in the primary legislation, which is the main objective of the amendment. I would be interested in other members' views on those amendments. Amendment 249 effectively creates a statutory duty to promote community transport. The amendment requires local authorities to have regard to the desirability of promoting community bus services and places of reporting duty on ministers, requiring them to demonstrate how they have promoted community bus services. Local transport authorities must demonstrate how they have had regard to promoting community bus services in a report to the Scottish Government. Ministers would then be required to lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the operation of the act on community bus services. That report should detail what steps ministers have taken to promote community bus services, along with a summary of information submitted to them by local authorities on how they have met their duty. Subsection 4 requires that, in complying with the amendment, ministers consult certain bodies such as transport authorities, the traffic commissioner and representatives of community providers. Taken together, those amendments seek to promote community bus services and local democratic control bus services at the community level. Thank you. I would now like to ask Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 248A and other amendments in the group. I thank Neil Bibby for bringing this to the committee's attention, the issue around community bus services. We have some other amendments in different parts of the section of the bill that seek to address that issue. It is commendable that many communities do take it upon themselves to try to plug gaps and holes where there are sufficient services. On 2.30, if you look at what the amendment actually does, it is section 28 of the bill. At the moment, subsection 2 says that the council may provide such local services as they consider necessary in order to meet the public transport requirement, which is fair enough. I think that what Neil Bibby is inserting into that is that the council may provide or ask a community transport body to provide such a service. In principle, I do not have a problem with that, so I would be happy to support that amendment. The reason that I have simply changed must to me is that must means that the minister must do it in essence. I would like to give the minister the power to do it but not necessarily mandate them to do it. I think that it may infers the power on the face of the bill but does not make it an absolute requirement to do so, so therefore the minister could choose to use that power if he deemed it appropriate. I am hoping that that is maybe a compromise between the must do and the not do at all. I hope that members might reflect on that. I hope that my amendment 2.4.8 would be accepted to make 2.4.8 perhaps more palatable to other members. That being said, 2.4.9—again, I have some sympathy to it but I think that I have a problem with it and the reason for that is that local transport authorities should have regard to the desirability of promoting community bus services. They absolutely should but it then goes on in quite great detail in five subsections as to who they must consult with, how that must be held and how they must go about it. I think that there is probably some wide support from across the spectrum to improve community bus services and I would suggest politely if he would consider withdrawing this amendment but working with a range of parties and stakeholders and indeed the Government if they give a jet direction that they want to do. To look at how we could use the bus services part of the bill to put a greater duty to look at improving community transport, I do not think that this is the way to do it but I think that it should be done. Therefore, I would ask that we certainly be willing to sit down and work with the member on a future amendment for stage 3 if he were minded to not move this one. I hope that that sets out my position on these groupings. Thank you. I think that the amendments in this group cover a range of issues relating to community transport, which are very important. I am pleased to see the important role of community transport being brought forward given its absence in the bill itself. Amendment 30 would provide a welcome clarification on the potential role of community transport in providing services in instances of unmet needs. Amendment 248 raises an interesting question about whether communities should have the ability to take over a bus route as part of a community asset. Transfer bus routes are obviously invaluable to communities but, as it stands, they often have little power over changes or cuts to them, so I welcome the opportunity to look at how we might empower communities to better protect these vital routes and run them directly if there is an appetite. Amendment 249 places a statutory duty on transport authorities to promote community bus services and report against that duty. Again, I think that this is a welcome amendment that has the power to improve community transport in a number of ways. The duty, for example, would ensure that local transport authorities take adequate steps to support community transport and adapt to the introduction of an LEZ. An issue of the potential burden of an LEZ on community transport is one that the committee has already heard from at stage 1 and, indeed, during stage 2. All too often, community transport can be forgotten, despite the valuable role that it plays. Amendment 249 will ensure that it is properly supported without being prescriptive about what that entails. I hope that members will support amendments 230, 248 and 249 in Neil Bibby's name. John Finnie, followed by the cabinet secretary. I want to say very briefly that I am very supportive of Mr Bibby's amendments and the important role that community transport can play. First of all, I will say that the Scottish Government recognises the important role that community transport services have in allowing people to play a greater part in their local community, helping them to be independent, have a more active lifestyle and have less resilience on reliance on social and health services. I want to build on what exists now, but I do not believe that amendments in this group would help with this. Amendment 230 and 248 are linked, so I will address them together. In my view, those amendments are neither workable nor necessary. It is not necessary for Scottish ministers to provide a scheme for a community group to make a request to operate a bus route, as amendment 248 seeks to provide. In fact, there is nothing to stop a community group applying for a PSV licence or a community bus permit if they consider it appropriate to operate a bus route. The amendment would not take away the need for a body wishing to provide a service to comply with the usual PSV licensing and bus registration legislation. The intention of amendment 230 and 248, taken together, seems to enable a local authority to transfer an asset in the form of a bus route to a community body. To be clear, the new ability of a local authority to provide bus services as an unmet passenger transport requirement that is contained in the proposed new section 71A of the Transport Act 1985, which is being inserted by section 28 of the bill, is not an exclusive right nor an asset capable of being transferred under a scheme as proposed. Additionally, another commercial operator may subsequently decide to start operating the route and it would no longer be an unmet need, which the local authority has powers to provide. If a local authority were to seek a third party, such as a community body, to provide an unmet passenger transport requirement, the appropriate thing to do would be to offer it out as a supported service under the existing powers in section 63 of the Transport Act 1985, following the appropriate procurement route. To do anything else more favourable for a community body, which would be an operator like any other and could, of course, tender to provide a service, could breach procurement rules. Turning to amendment 248A, this would alter amendment 248 so that it is not a duty on the Scottish ministers to make such a scheme but a power that they may use. Whilst I appreciate what Jamie Greene is trying to do here, as I've said out, making such a scheme is not workable, appropriate or necessary, and as such I can't support amendment 248A. Amendment 249 would place a number of bureaucratic burdens on LTAs and the Scottish Government, and those would not add value to the operation of community bus services. The proposed amendment would require LTAs to consider promoting community bus services, incurring out their duties in relation to part 2 of the bill, those being bus service improvement partnerships, local services franchising, local authority provision of services and data provision. It's very hard to see how that could be appropriate within those functions. The promotion of one bus service or category of service over others has the potential to distort the commercial market, which could negatively impact on other services and raise anti-competition concerns. Additionally, there are already pillars in section 63 of the Transport Act 1985 to allow local authorities to take some measures to promote the availability of public passenger transport services, and that can include community bus services, where an authority considers appropriate. The amendment also seeks to make the Scottish ministers consider and report on LTAs actions in relation to promoting community bus services. As I've said, to impose the proposed duty on local authorities is not appropriate, and it would also not be appropriate or necessary for Scottish ministers to carry out this reporting function. All of this is not to say that I don't think that we can make progress in this area. I do expect community transport provision to be a factor in any consideration LTAs are making in respect of franchising, local authority run bus services and bus service improvement partnership proposals. That will be reflected in guidance on those elements in due course. We will, of course, be engaging with LTAs as we implement the bill measures, and I will ensure that the promotion of the benefits of community transport are included in those engagements. I therefore ask Neil Bibby not to move amendment 230 or press amendment 248 or 249, but if he does, I would ask the committee to reject him. I would also ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 248A, but if he does, I would therefore ask the committee to reject the amendment. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Neil Bibby, can I ask you to wind up and press and withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. I thank members for their support and principle for amendments and the constructive comments that have been received. As I said earlier, the amendments in this group deal with various aspects of community transport and community bus services, but each is very different in its purpose. The bill makes clear that there is a role for local authorities as a provider of last resort. That does not change with amendment 230. Amendment 230 simply allows a local authority to ask a community bus operator to assume the role of provider of last resort. Both local authorities and community operators are locally accountable. Both exist to provide public services, not to accumulate private profit. Asking a community operator to become a provider of last resort simply expands the powers available to councils, but also recognises that in some parts of the world a community provider may offer the best solution to market failure and the contraction of the bus network. Can he point me at the role that prevents a local authority from currently asking a community transport body to do what he is suggesting? Obviously, the bus market is evolving and changing, and we will evolve and change as a result of this bill. In actual fact, there might be changes as a result of this bill that will make that more difficult. As I indicated earlier, amendment 230— There are no provisions in the bill that make that more difficult at all, so it is incorrect to state that that is the case with the introduction of this bill. I want to ensure that this amendment is on the bill to ensure that community transport could be used as an operator of last resort. I do not see why that is a problem. As I indicated earlier, amendment 248 is based on a principle that bus services are community services and the operation of those services should be transferable to a community transport body. The principle is sound. In other areas of policy, a procedure for community asset transfer has been established. I am proposing that we apply a similar logic and similar procedure to public transport and the operation of local bus services. That amendment would grant the Scottish Government the power to translate that policy into practice through regulation. In the interests of consensus and building cross-party support for developing this co-operative agenda, I would be happy to object to amendment 248 on transferring bus routes to the community. I am happy to withdraw amendment 249 on creating new duties to promote community transport to what will other parties and how best we can do that. However, it is absolutely vital that we promote community transport, and that is on the bill. I will seek to bring that back at stage 3. I will move amendment 230 in my name. Thank you. We will come to that in due course. Has this amendment been pressed? The question is that amendment 230 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is division. Therefore, those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. There are five votes for this amendment, six votes against for amendment 230 is not agreed. The question is that section 28 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Therefore, call amendment 68 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 66, Cabinet Secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I am now going to move on to the next section. I noticed that we are some two hours into this committee meeting, so what I would like to do is finish this section and then we will take a short break. Members will bear that in mind when they press their amendments. We are on bus service improvement partnership, the content of a partnership plan, and I am going to call an amendment 69 in the name of Colin Smyth group with amendments 70, 71 and 72. Colin Smyth to move amendment 69 and to speak to amendments in the group. I am happy to move amendment 69 and to speak on amendment 69, 70 and 72, which add at various points in the bill's provisions on bus service improvement partnerships that they need to consult with and take account of those living in poverty and those with relevant protected characteristics. It is important that those partnerships deliver for all passengers, and those amendments will ensure that inclusion is at the very heart of the plans. The provisions around consultation in particular will ensure that voices that are far too often overlooked are included. Transport is an important role to play in the lives of those living in poverty or with protected characteristics that can provide essential access to a range of opportunities and services. Equally poor or inaccessible public transport can contribute towards poverty and worsen its effects. Those amendments will ensure that that is kept in mind as those plans are developed. That could inform a range of aspects of those plans. The most obvious example is the affordability of fares, but equally it should inform a range of other decisions. For example, it may impact on decisions around routes by ensuring that services are run to deprived areas. Ensuring that BSIPs work for those living in poverty and those with protected characteristics is, in my view, fundamental to their success. Those amendments help to achieve that. Last week, the Government's own poverty and inequality commission said that deeds and not words are required from the Scottish Government to deliver an economy that helps to tackle poverty. The Government may argue that the fairer Scotland duty puts tackling and equality at the heart of key decision making, but it is worth bearing in mind that the fairer Scotland duty does not cover currently regional transport agencies. Therefore, it is unlikely to deliver what I am aiming to do in those amendments. Amendment 71 clarifies that efforts to obtain views on BSIPs should not be exclusively limited to current passengers. We have a significant challenge with partners on bus services and reversing those trends means engaging with those who are not currently, for whatever reason, using buses but could potentially be future passengers. It could ensure that those who do not use buses due to specific barriers, be it accessibility costs and so on, have an opportunity to feed into the process and highlight those particular issues. I therefore, any one member so far has indicated to wish to speak. Jamie Greene. Just to say that Mr Smith would be pleased to support amendment 71. Thank you. Another member has indicated that they wish to speak. Cabinet Secretary. Iain Smith, amendment 69 to 72 in this group and amendment 83 to 94 in the group on the consultation on making variations and revocation of partnership proposals seeks to impose additional requirements as to the content, notification of and consultation on bus service improvement partnership plans and schemes. That issue was raised by those amendments. All of those amendments are similar. Those amendments have a specific focus on ensuring that account is taken of the need and views of those on low incomes or who have experience of poverty and who find it difficult to use or afford local services because they have a protected characteristic listed in the Equalities Act 2010. I absolutely agree with Colin Smith that those are important considerations, but I do not think that those amendments, as written, would have the desired effect. The amendments, firstly, require bus service improvement partnership plans to describe how schemes under them are intended to meet objectives regarding the equality and effectiveness of local services in meeting the needs of such persons. Secondly, those amendments would require plans to describe proposals for obtaining the views of such persons as to how well plans and schemes are working. As far as plans and objectives are concerned, the bill, as introduced, gives scope to LTAs to set the objectives to be met by bus service improvement partnership schemes as regards to the equality and effectiveness of services. Significant flexibility is set in order to allow service standards to be set and to meet those objectives. Those objectives and the associated standards may include objectives and standards specifically aimed at meeting the needs of those on low incomes or whose ability to use local services affected by their having a protected characteristic. Indeed, I would expect that to be a key consideration for any LTA embarking on a bus service improvement partnership. So, from that point of view, amendment 70 is unnecessary. For a similar reason, I consider amendment 69, which requires specific analysis of how existing local services are meeting the needs of those in the planned area on low incomes, is also unnecessary. New section 3A2BI would already allow for such analysis, which would be fundamental to determining what measures a bus service improvement partnership proposal should take forward to improve bus services. However, I also have a concern that placing LTAs under such a start duty on this particular matter may in practice narrow their focus. Bus service improvement partnerships are collaborative partnerships that will have analysed the existing service provision in the area and the policies to be implemented in order to make substantive improvements. Scheme objectives may be wide-ranging from making local services accessible to all those on low income to reducing congestion or air pollution. If low incomes or poverty were issues affecting the decline in bus services, then that should have been identified in the scoping analysis. While affordability and accessibility are likely to be key objectives in such cases, there is a risk that those amendments could cause LTAs to focus on fares and pricing to the exclusion of wider quality and accessibility measures, even in cases where low income or poverty were not driving the decline in bus shoes. That could hamper the effectiveness of bus service improvement partnerships or decrease the appetite for LTAs to promote them. For those reasons, although Mr Smith's amendments are laudable, I would urge him to withdraw amendment 69 and not to move amendment 70. The consultation and notice requirements included in the bill as introduced are also extensive. They require general notice of partnership proposals and of proposals to vary plans and schemes in force in such manner as the LTAs consider appropriate in order to bring them to the notice of persons in their area as well as specific requirements to consult organisations representing the users of local services. Bus service improvement partnership plans themselves must contain details on how the LTA intends to obtain the views of users of local services as to how well the plan and any scheme under it are operating. All of that is considered sufficient to ensure that adequate notice is given to and consultation is undertaken with anybody, including those affected by poverty, who may be impacted by bus service improvement partnership plans and schemes. Importantly, the approach that is taken by the bill as introduced imposes those requirements in a way that is clearer and practically achievable. Amendment 71 and 72 would make matters less clear and, indeed, in some instances may impose duties that are practically unachievable. In particular, amendment 72 would appear to require LTAs to give notice to or to consult all persons who have experience of poverty in respect of bus service improvement partnerships, future operations. Poverty in this context is not defined and would be very challenging to define. Even if such a definition were possible, it would simply be impossible to identify, consult and give notice to every person who has that experience. An inability to meet the requirement imposed by those amendments may frustrate the process of partnership proposals. Finally, I would add that the consultation on bus services preceding the bill made clear that quality partnership and quality contract schemes were not used because they were considered too onerous. I do not want to repeat that error with bus service improvement partnerships. So, while I have sympathy with Mr Smith's aims, I consider his intentions to be laudable, and I urge him not to press amendments 69 to 72 but, if those amendments are pressed, for the committee to reject them. I thank you, cabinet secretary. Curran Smith, could you wind up, please? Thank you very much, convener. I will just briefly remind the cabinet secretary that, last week, the Government's own poverty and inequality commission said deeds and not words are required from this Government to deliver an economy that helps tackle poverty. Frankly, it is simply saying that this may happen as words and it is certainly not deeds from the Government. There is absolutely nothing within the bill that will ensure that we look at the issue around affordability and people living in poverty being able to access bus services and to try to tackle the barriers that are in the way for people to achieve that. I have to say that, to imply that you cannot consult people living in poverty or those with other particular characteristics because you are not able to consult every single one of them. Frankly, that is not what the amendment is saying. The amendment is saying that we should effort should be made to consult people in those circumstances and develop those plans and consider, as part of those plans, only one of the factors, but consider as part of those plans how we break down those barriers for people on, for example, low-income or people living in deprived communities, often which do not have bus services, how we can use BSIPs to try to tackle those particular issues. It is disappointing that the cabinet secretary did not bring forward any alternative as to how that may be achieved going forward. On that basis, I will move my amendments. Thank you, Colin. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. There are two votes in favour. There are nine votes against those. Therefore, amendment 69 is not agreed. I call amendment 70 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there is division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes in favour. There are nine votes against. Therefore, amendment 70 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 71 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 69? Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question, therefore, is amendment 71 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes in favour. There are six votes against. Therefore, amendment 71 is not agreed. I therefore call amendment 72 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 69. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes in favour. There are nine votes against. Therefore, amendment 72 is not agreed. Now, I had hoped to move on to the next section, but I am not going to because there was quite a lot of speaking done in that. I won't point the finger at any one, but one particular member spoke for seven minutes and 36 seconds, which is quite a long period of time to speak for in this amendment. I am now going to suspend the meeting for eight minutes to allow members to get a cup of coffee or whatever. Thank you. I am going to reconvene the meeting and we are on bus service improvement partnership facilities and measures. I would like to call amendment 73 in the name of the cabinet secretary group, with amendments that have been shared in the groupings. Please could you move amendment 73 and speak to all the amendments in the group? Following engagement with stakeholders, I have identified the need to add to our provision on the circumstances that surround the making of traffic regulation orders made under the bill. Where the provision of a facility is a bus service improvement partnership requires a traffic regulation order for a road for which the Scottish ministers and the traffic authority are. The scheme can only go ahead if it is agreed by the local transport authority and Scottish ministers acting jointly. Those amendments put in place the same arrangements for cases where a measure in a BSIP requires the traffic regulation order making Scottish ministers and the local transport authority joint partners in the scheme. The distinction between facilities and measures can broadly be described as infrastructure and other. Given the broad nature of the concept of measures, I am seeking to ensure that a scenario where they require a traffic regulation order in such circumstances is created for in the bill to provide parity with the concept of facilities. Amendment 73 gives effect to this by inserting the taking of measures to section 3E1 of the Transport Scotland Act 2001. Amendment 7778, 170, 171 are further consequential amendments to ensure that measures are included alongside facilities in the circumstances that I have set out. The Scottish Government is listening to the recommendations made by the Delegated Pills and Law Reform Committee in its stage 1 report. Accordingly, I have brought forward amendment 179 to ensure that any regulations that are made by ministers about what may constitute a facility or measure will attract affirmative procedure. I move amendment 73. Thank you, cabinet secretary. No member has indicated that they wish to speak. I am assuming that cabinet secretary does not want to say any more, cabinet secretary. Thank you. The question, therefore, is that the amendment 73 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, we move on to the next section, which is bus service improvement partnership traffic regulation orders. Can I call amendment 74 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendment, as shown on the groupings? Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to move amendment 74 and speak to the other amendments in the group, cabinet secretary? Amendment 73 in the groupings bus service improvement partnership facilities and measures put in place arrangements for cases where a measure in a bus service improvement partnership requires a traffic regulation order on a road for which the Scottish ministers are the traffic authority, making the Scottish ministers and the local transport authority joint parties to the scheme. This group of amendments are consequential upon the policy intention behind amendment 73 and others in that group. Amendment 74 provides a definition so as to be clear as to what constitutes a traffic authority by reference to section 121A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Amendment 75 amends section 3E2 of the Transport Scotland Act 2001 to confirm that bus service improvement partnership schemes in these circumstances may only be made, postponed, varied or revoked by local transport authorities and Scottish ministers jointly. Amendment 76 is consequential amendment to ensure that the measures are included alongside facilities in the circumstances that I have set out. Amendment 175 and 177 seeks to relax the definition of TRO for the purposes of a BSIP provision. Currently, the definition in the 2001 act restricts the making of a TRO to a purpose relating to the regulation of the use of the road by public service vehicles, namely buses. That is potentially too restrictive an approach given that TROs may be required to enable measures to be taken in relation to car parking, for example. As such, the definition is being relaxed and being allowed to default back to its natural meaning so that LTAs have a broader suite of options available to them. Amendment 74 is my name and I ask members to support the other amendments in this group. Now that the member has asked to speak, I assume that you do not want to say anything more. The question therefore is amendment 74 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I therefore call amendment 75, 76, 77 and 78, all in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and all previously debated. Can I invite Cabinet Secretary to you to move amendments 75 to 78 on block? Can I ask if any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 75 to 78? Therefore, the question is that amendments 75 to 78 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, I move on to the next section, which is bus service improvement partnerships, regulation on partnership time. I would like to call amendment 281 in the name of Jamie Greene group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jamie Greene, could you move amendment 281 and speak to all the amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. Can I move amendment 281? This grouping of amendments are around the bus service improvement partnerships, commonly known as BSIPs, and specifically around the regulations on partnership timings. As it stands at the moment looking at the bill, section 3F, Effective Partnership Plans and Schemes, states that a local authority must provide a facility or take a measure that forms part of a BSIP no later than the date specified in the scheme. However, section 3G, under postponement of partnership schemes coming into operation, seems somewhat to roll back that commitment by stating that, if a local authority may, if they consider it appropriate, decide to postpone the coming into operation of a partnership scheme or any part of it, that this should be no greater than 12 months. The reality is, though, that postponing a bus priority measure, in effect, would also postpone the operator's ability to generate passenger growth and income, while expecting operators to meet the additional service standards that would perhaps increase their operating costs. The amendments in the group 281, 282 specifically seek to address the uncapped length of postponement and the number of times of postponement can take place. Amendment 79A and 80A are amendments to the cabinet secretary's. 79A would, additionally, insert a limit on a postponement to no more than 24 months if deemed appropriate by ministers 80A does the same to amendment 80. On amendment 79A and 78A, I think that those amendments that are being proposed would result in ministers having the power to postpone the implementation of a partnership scheme potentially for over a year and could hinder the timely implementation of such a scheme at the behest of ministers. Granting this power, I think, is unnecessary, as local authorities should be able to implement the scheme at a time that they see fit, as the current provisions in the bill will provide a good enough framework for local authorities. I would not be minded not to support 79A and 80A for those reasons. Those amendments and some of the others that I will come on to later were drafted in consultation with the confederation of passenger transport. I would like to thank for the involvement and input in that. Those amendments reflect their views and the views of many operators who work in the industry. Thank you. I call cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 79 and other amendments in the great cabinet secretary. Amendment 79A and 187 are designed to allow Scottish ministers by regulation to amend the maximum period of postponement for a planned bus service improvement partnership scheme or any variation of such a scheme. Given the nature of those pillars, I believe that it is appropriate that they are subject to the affirmative procedure. We have put them forward as it seems important that some flexibility is built into this part of the process in order that reasonable adjustments can be made over time in response to experience of schemes in operation or shifting market dynamics. It may be that longer or shorter time periods are more appropriate in order to minimise the impact of any postponement on the parties to such an agreement. We will only know that, however, through watching and learning the operation of schemes. A postponement is not an action to be taken by the LTA lightly. The collaborative nature of the preparation of the plan and the scheme should highlight any potential difficulties in this regard, and those should be accommodated accordingly. Any postponement will be for genuinely unforeseen and unavoidable reasons. It would delay a scheme, a scheme that has taken time and effort of parties involved to put in place. As such, it is not anticipated that postponement is an action that LTAs would use lightly or repeatedly. We cannot, however, foresee all of the eventualities and have sought in all the bus service improvement partnership provisions to strike the balance between the clear process and flexibility. Jamie Greene's amendment 79A and 80A would set the maximum period for the postponement of a planned bus service improvement partnership or any variation of a bus service improvement partnership at 24 months. Mr Greene's amendments at 281 and 282 would put in place the additional condition that a bus service improvement partnership or variation of such a partnership may be postponed only once. Although I agree that postponement of a bus service improvement partnership would create considerable uncertainty to the parties to their agreement, I would wish to avoid such a overtly restrictive approach to this process. Restrictions of this type could ultimately be problematic for the LTA and may find themselves in a situation where it must bring into operation a scheme that has not yet had all of the standards, facilities or measures in place. I would wish to avoid a procedural difficulty of this nature where possible. It is for the reasons that I propose that elements of flexibility can be taken forward through a regulation making power that is provided, subject to the appropriate safeguard of affirmative parliamentary process in relation to time periods for postponement. The level of specificity of Jamie Greene's amendment seeks to impose a potentially restrictive regime that I do not believe is appropriate in those circumstances. Therefore, I ask Jamie Greene not to press his amendments but to support them amendments 79, 80 and 178, in my name. Thank you, cabinet secretary. No other members indicated that they wish to speak. Therefore, Jamie Greene, could I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary is saying. Based on his comments around amendments 281 and 282, I think that he makes a valid point. I wouldn't want an unintended consequence would be that a scheme would have to be implemented if it were not ready to do so. I totally take that on board. On that basis, I would withdraw those two amendments. However, on 79 and 80, I would still like to make the point that, as it is drafted at the moment, the minister's amendment says that the minister may, by regulation, specify a different total period of postponement than the one being specified. However, there is no limit to how long that could be. I think that a 24-month postponement is a reasonable amount of time to put a limitation on that. As it is currently drafted, it could be years or decades. I do not think that that is fair on either the LTA or the operators involved in the partnership. However, as he says, it is a collaborative approach that I would be happy to do. As I stated, any time on it will be through affirmative procedure, so it will require parliamentary approval. It says that it may, by regulations, amend subsection 5 to specify a different total period of postponement time. Would that therefore set the maximum postponement part of that regulation? As I stated, the regulations are by regulation, and the regulations are by affirmative procedure, which means that they would have to come before Parliament for approval. Any time limit has to be agreed by Parliament. I thank you for confirming that. That provides me with some comfort thereof, no further comments. I understand that Jamie Greene wishes to withdraw amendment 281. Is that right? 281. So, does any member object? Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. Therefore, call amendments 79 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 281. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please. Call amendment 79A in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 281. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Nor move, convener. I think that the question, therefore, is that amendment 79 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 282 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 281. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move. The question, therefore, I'm sorry. I therefore call amendment 80 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 281. Cabinet secretary, to move formally please. I call amendment 80A in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 281. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move. The question, therefore, is amendment 80 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Now, I'm going to move on to bus service improvement partnerships, reports on partnerships schemes. I'm going to call amendment 231 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group on its own. Jamie Greene, to move and speak to amendment 231. Thank you, convener. Amendment 231 is around the reporting on partnership scheme, section 3J of the bill details the requirements of local authority to report on the effectiveness of a partnership scheme every 12 months. Experienced today from the current statutory quality partnerships, the predecessor model to BCIP, have demonstrated that, in reality, when it comes reporting, local authorities have not always delivered timely or comprehensive data. I think that that undermines the ability of the partnership itself to make informed decisions in its future direction. Therefore, I have added in some further requirements under the reporting requirements for additional information to be specified in its reporting. I think that the bill should be amended to include a requirement that annual reporting on effectiveness includes up-to-date and relevant data relating to relevant service standards in the BCIP's aims, including peak and off-peak average bus speeds, and for those figures to become the basis for further local authority action should there be no improvements to services. I would be keen to hear what the cabinet secretary and any other members have on the additional reporting requirements, and if they felt that they would form useful parts of a BCIP and how it is different from a statutory quality partnership. Thank you, Jamie. Any other members indicate that they wish to speak? Cabinet Secretary, please. Convener, Jamie Greene's amendment 231 seeks to impose additional requirements as to the content that the annual report to be prepared by a local transport authority on bus service improvement partnership schemes must contain. The bill, as it stands, sets out the requirement that the LTA must prepare and publish an annual report on the effectiveness on a BCIP scheme and who is to be consulted during the preparation. It also specifies that the LTA must consider representations made to them about the effectiveness of that scheme. The reporting requirement relates to the overall effectiveness of the scheme. I consider that to be adequately broad so as to encompass the first aspect of the proposed amendment on the achievements of the scheme objectives, on quality, effectiveness and service standards. In relation to bus speed, I think that it is likely to be exactly the sort of metric that will be used by many partnerships when they are considering the issue of establishing a partnership, given the importance that tackling congestion to making bus services more attractive to passengers can play. However, I do not consider it necessary to prescribe a reporting duty in relation to any specific indicators over any other in primary legislation. Each scheme will be unique and we would wish to avoid the scenario where reports are published on bus speeds, where addressing those speeds is not a scheme objective. Where bus speeds are a key indicator, the scheme is aiming to tackle this, of course, should be addressed in the report. I would add that we intend to set out guidance for the details as to what the reports should contain and my officials will be working with bus operators, local transport authorities and other stakeholders on that. There is also a regulation-making power in section 3L, should that be considered a useful and proportionate course of action to take at a future date. Therefore, whilst I very much understand what Jamie Greene is seeking to achieve here, I urge him not to press amendment 23231 to reject it. I hear what the cabinet secretary is saying. He is saying that the state is important and that those things should be monitored but does not seem keen to make a requirement to measure a report on them, which seems strange. At the moment, as it is currently awarded the bill, on page 17, if anyone is looking at it, line 37, the scheme must publish and report on the effectiveness of the scheme. That is about as much detail as it gives. It does not really go into any great deal. My amendment provides some helpful additional recommendations. The minister says that they will be in the guidelines. We have not seen those guidelines. If the minister was willing to share them with the committee ahead of stage 3, we can see whether they are suitable. All I am simply asking for is that the data is provided. Now, what they do with that data is another matter. However, it would be useful data to have given the importance of improving average bus speeds to improve modal shift to buses. It is also important that, in subsection C, where the progress towards achieving the objectives and service standards is not satisfactory on the steps that the local authority intends to take. That means that it is not just reporting numbers for number of sites but setting out a plan as to how the schemes will be improved. I do not see that as being an onerous task on the partnership. I see that it has been a useful collection of important data. I hope that members would agree with me that that should be included. I would be minded to continue to move amendment 231 on that basis. Thank you. The question therefore is amendment 231. Be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are four votes in favour. There are seven votes against. Therefore, amendment 231 is not agreed. We would then move on to the next section, bus service improvement partnerships provision of information by operators. I would like to call amendment 81 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary of State group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet Secretary, can you please move amendment 81 and speak to the amendments in the group? The committee stage 1 report recommended that the Scottish Government considered whether the service data provisions contained in the bill might provide sufficient information to enable a local transport authority to fully evaluate the pros and cons of using the powers available in part 2 of the bill. Amendment 81 and 98 seek to address the issue by inserting new section 3GIA and 13QA of the Transport Scotland Act 2001 to provide powers for a local transport authority to gather information from bus operators when considering and implementing local service franchises and bus service improvement partnerships. Amendment 174 amends section 39 of that act to enable the traffic commissioner to impose a penalty on an operator who fails to comply with a requirement to provide information under those new sections. I would make clear that the information that can be required under these provisions can only be used for the purposes it has been obtained and the new provisions create offences in respect of any breach of the conditions of use and disclosure by an LTA or a person acting on its behalf. Officials carried out discussions with stakeholders, including the Confederation of Passengers and the Association of Transport convening officers in developing these amendments and will continue to do so as regulations and guidance are developed. I am grateful to Colin Smyth for the amendment that he has brought forward in this group. However, I consider that the Scottish Government amendments put forward addressed information requirements fully. As such, amendment 82 and 102, in my view, are unnecessary. Therefore, I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 82 and 102, but if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. I would ask the committee to support amendment 81, 98 and 174 in my name, and I move amendment 81. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Colin Smyth, can I ask you to speak to amendment 82 and any other amendments in the group that you need to please? Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 82 and 102, in my name, allow ministers to settle in secondary legislation what information must be provided to local transport authorities for the purposes of developing BSIPs and franchises. These serve a similar purpose to amendments 8 to 198 from the cabinet secretary. Given local authorities' access to the data that they need to set up BSIPs, it is crucial to ensuring that those new powers are used. A number of stakeholders raised the issue in evidence to the committee, and I am glad that the cabinet secretary has listened to those concerns and the committee's stage 1 recommendation by bringing forward amendments on the issue. I am happy to support the cabinet secretary's amendments and not press mine, as the cabinet secretary's amendments are more detailed and cover the issue that we are discussing. Now that members have indicated that they wish to speak, cabinet secretary, can I ask you to wind up, please? No, for that comment. The question, therefore, is that amendment 81 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I am now going to move on to the next section, which is bus services, fare work. I am going to call amendment 232, in the name of Colin Smyth, group with amendment 242. Colin Smyth, can I ask you to move amendment 232 and speak to both amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. I am happy to move amendment 232 and to speak on 232 and 242, which call for ministerial direction on the need to incorporate the principles of fare work in besips and franchises. Working conditions and wages in this sector are under constant pressure and the lack of collective bargaining in this sector has led to a race to the bottom, which has seen bus driver wages fall well below average wages. Significant amounts of public money are spent on bus services. In fact, public money makes up close to half of all bus operator revenue. Given how much public money supports those operators, they should be upholding the highest standards of employment terms and conditions and we should be using all mechanisms available to ensure that this is the case. The introduction of besips and franchises is such a mechanism. I am conscious that employment is a reserved issue and I have tried to be mindful of that in this amendment, but my approach here is exactly the same when proposed by the Government in the recent south of Scotland enterprise bill agreed by members unanimously last week. Those amendments do not detail any specific responsibilities. That will be a matter for the direction, though I do, of course, have views on what it should include. It is simply about agreeing that the principles of fare work should be tried into those particular agreements. I am happy to leave it at that. Thank you. Peter Chapman, you would like to speak. Thank you, convener. Unfortunately, I cannot support either amendment in this grouping. As fare work is a framework established by this current Government, any new Government that were to come into power could change this policy and framework, and that would then become redundant. It is therefore not appropriate to refer to this legislation within this bill. Can you explain why you voted for the same wording when it came to the south of Scotland enterprise bill last week? I cannot at this point in time, because I cannot remember exactly what the process was, but I stick by what I say with regards to this bill. I am sure that that is a debate that you can continue later. Cabinet Secretary, maybe you could add to this. I will try. Amendments 232 and 242 by Colin Smyth seek to require the Scottish ministers to issue directions to local transport authorities, require them to specify in-bus service improvement partnerships and franchising frameworks how each authority or local service operator must seek to promote fare work in exercising its functions. The directions must also set out what fare work means in that context. I support in principle what Colin Smyth is trying to do here. The Scottish Government, as the committee knows, supports fare work practices and wishes to promote them as much as is practical within the limitations imposed by the Scotland Act reservations to the UK Parliament of Employment and Industrial Relations and Procurement Rules. Indeed, Colin Smyth's amendments in some respects resemble Scottish Government amendments lodged by Fergus Ewing at stage 3 of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, which passed stage 3 on Wednesday last week. However, the proposed amendments to the current bill are actually very different to those that recently agreed for the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill in light of the different policy and legal context in which they would operate. Therefore, I have a number of concerns about incorporating similar amendments in those bus provisions. In relation to franchising, I am not persuaded that those amendments are necessary. Franchising will be delivered through franchise agreements. Those are regulated procurements in respect of which local transport authorities are already required to have regard to the statutory guidance on addressing fare work practices, including the living wage in procurement. The need for an additional central Government direction in the context of franchising is therefore doubtful. In relation to bus service improvement partnership plans, the use of ministerial directions would be quite unusual and arguably inappropriate. In the case of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, the context there concerns the duties of a public body, and it is appropriate for ministers to take broad powers to direct public bodies. However, in the case of bus provision, we are considering the duties of local transport authorities. Most of those are local authorities, and any power to direct a local authority in the exercise of its functions should be appropriately constrained. A ministerial power of direction, as potentially broad and far-reaching, as is proposed by Colin Smyth, may risk curing across local democratic accountability. For that reason, if we were to seek to impose obligations in respect of fare work in this instance, I think that it would be more appropriate to do so by means of statutory guidance than by ministerial direction. While I understand why Colin Smyth has sought to adapt the Government's own amendments to the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, that gives rise to some technical issues given the different legal framework that is created by the Transport Bill. It is not clear whether the fare work directions in this case are intended to be binding on LTAs. It is also not clear whether the ultimate intention of a direction would be to impose through partnership schemes legal duties on bus operators to promote fare work when carrying out their business. Given the procedures, I am happy to give way. I do not want to give any cause to suspect other than you want the high standards of employment applying. Is it possible that the Scottish Government will come back with an amendment that would incorporate that at stage 3? If the member's patient allows me to finish, I will come to that particular point as well for him. Given the procedures and enforcement powers that are connected to bus service improvement partnerships in particular, it is unlikely that those amendments, as drafted, at any directions under them, could ensure that fare work considerations were effectively taken into account. Again, there is a distinction to be drawn between the amendments and the amendments agreed in relation to the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, which impose a straightforward power to direct South of Scotland Enterprise and a duty on it to comply with such direction. For those reasons, I cannot support those amendments as they stand. Given the Government's clear commitment to fare work and to embedding and promoting fare work principles within the limits of our powers and the powers of this Parliament, I will commit to considering how best we may weave fare work considerations into bus service provisions of the bill in advance of stage 3. I am very happy to meet Colin Smyth to work with him on that particular issue. That being the case, I would ask that Colin Smyth not to press his amendment 232 and 242, but if those amendments are pressed, to vote against them. Thank you very much, convener. I am pleased to have reminded the Government of its commitments under fare work. Given the commitment that the cabinet secretary made to work with me on possible amendments at stage 3, I will not press my amendment and I will invite Peter Chapman to come along to those discussions as well. As Colin Smyth wants to withdraw amendment 232, does any member wish to object? Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. Can I call amendment 8, 2 in the name of Colin Smyth, or are you debated with amendment 81, Colin Smyth, to move or not move? It's not with the wrong page. Too many members are going to do that. I'm not going to move. Okay. Sorry. I'm not sure whose instruction you are following. I'm okay. I'm glad we clarified that. Can we go and move on to bus services and transport information accessibility? I call amendment 233, in the name of Colin Smyth, group with amendments, as shown on the groupings. Colin Smyth, to move amendment 233 and speak to any other amendments in the group that you feel you wish to. All of the amendments in this group are intended to improve accessibility on buses. UK-wide equality legislation provides a floor in terms of accessibility standards, but not a ceiling. We should be constantly looking at ways to improve accessibility in public transport, and this bill provides a number of opportunities to do this. Amendments 233 and 243 would allow BSIPs and franchises to include provisions on accessibility. This is just one of the ways that we can use the new mechanisms in this bill to improve that accessibility. Some local transport authorities already use tendering to deliver more accessible services. Those amendments would encourage that to become the norm in the development of BSIPs and franchises. It's crucial that BSIPs and franchises deliver improvements for all passengers, including those with disabilities or other mobility issues, and that amendment will help to achieve that. That is not prescriptive in what should involve. I appreciate that different areas may have different particular needs. However, I think that we should be clear in the face of the bill that this is something that those agreements should look at. Amendment 109 would require all new and refurbished bus stops to be made more accessible. Again, it's about ensuring that disabled people are able to use public transport and are able to do so as safely and independently as possible, and I'm sure that everyone here shares. Specifically, it aims to remove obstructions and hazards from bus stops requiring step-free access. It would also stop the use of floating bus stops with cycle lanes run between the pavement and the bus stop. Those are a serious hazard, particularly for blind and partially sighted people. That would not require every bus stop in the country to be altered to meet those standards. It just creates a new standard for new bus stops and others when they are being refurbished. Putting that in legislation will ensure that best practice is consistently followed across the country, and we do not have bus stops continue to be developed that are simply not fully accessible. Amendment 250 would require bus drivers to undertake disability awareness training on an annual basis. As it stands, drivers only have to do that training on a one-off basis. That creates a risk that the details of the training will be forgotten over time, particularly around scenarios that they don't encounter on a regular basis. There's also a risk that best practice will move on and drivers who haven't received any training since the start of their careers will not be kept up to date. Doing that training on an annual basis will ensure that drivers are receiving regular training and always have the most up-to-date information. That regularity will also allow them to raise any questions or scenarios that have occurred during the course of the previous year. That is not calling for intensive lengthy training every year. Realistically, we are looking at a day a year, for example, but that is a reasonable ask with the benefit of improving both the experiences of disabled people using public transport and drivers' confidence and capabilities in that area. Amendments 250A and 250B by Jamie Greene look to change that so that it does not require annual training but requires training whenever there are significant changes to relevant legislation. My concern is that this might undermine the key aim of this amendment, which is to ensure regular training. It is possible for drivers to work for long periods of their careers without the relevant legislation changing during which time they could easily forget details of their training and best practice can evolve. Amendments 250A by Jeremy Balfour calls for a minister to publish a report and what they have done to ensure that information is accessible and what steps will take based on the recommendations of the report. I think that this would be a useful addition to the bill. The issue of accessible information is one that I try to address in amendment 107. It is of huge importance and the work required here would be useful in identifying the gaps and actions that are needed to ensure that this information is accessible. I think that that is all the amendments that are covered. Thank you. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to speak to amendment 109A and any other amendments in the group, please? It is 190A. It is 109A, but you can correct me if you like. Let's speak to amendment 109A. Just to clarify that, this is stopping places for the two Collin men Constance amendments. I think that these are two very substantive issues. I am pleased that Constance brought them to the chamber today. I think that they are very important points. One is about accessibility of bus stops and the other around driver training and awareness. I will speak to them too separately and explain why I am trying to amend them. I hope that it is not to be pursued as to weaken the intention behind the amendments. First of all, on 233 and 243, there are lots of numbers that are very similar today, convener. I apologise. I am happy to support both of those proposals from the outset, but on stopping places, first of all, amendment 109A simply adds the words were practicable after must. I think that the purpose of that is to agree that we should, if we are building a new bus stop or refurbishing one and spending capital on doing so, that it should be done in a way that improves the accessibility to and from buses from the stop. However, we need to give local transport authorities and local authorities some leeway over what can and cannot be done when creating stops. I think that there is an important point to be made to improve stops, but I also agree that it would be unreasonable to retro-upgrade all existing stops in their various guises and natures. However, it is fair that my small amendment adds a pragmatic element to Mr Smith's proposal, because I think that it is impossible to pre-empt every individual's circumstance and what they will be when it comes to building or what funding is available for new stops or refurbishing stops. Amendment 109B removes three of the parameters additional rules around what must go into the thought process on new stops. I actually thought that this whole section in its original wording was perfectly fine up until subsection 2A, and personally I would have stopped the amendment there, because I think up until that point it does say that there is a duty that any new stopping places should be accessible in accordance with other pieces of legislation, but it then goes on to be very prescriptive in terms of it should not share any part of a carriageway with a cycle track and mean that it does not require the use of a step. I refer back to my earlier point. I do not know the individual circumstances of every stop that will be built in the future, and there could be hundreds and thousands of them. It would be unreasonable to assume that there may not necessarily be a step involved in every circumstance. There are many older buses that do not have the ability to be retrofitted, for example, to be accessible, but yet many users would still like to use those services with other means of assistance, so I think that it is too prescriptive. I would perhaps ask members to consider that this is a compromise between the proposals set out in Mr Smith's amendment that I agree with, and it is not to be seen to be weakening out, but also to make it a little bit more practical in its application. The other important point that he makes is around disability training. I support the general principle of improving disability training among drivers. Like many other members, we met stakeholders, including the RNIB, who asked to support this in its entirety. My two amendments do two things. One is to remove the annual requirement. I think that it is an overly onerous duty on operators. I can see the merit to continuous training, but putting this in the face of the bill means, in effect, that operators would be breaking the law if they were, for any reason, unable to guarantee that all drivers and all bus riders had gone under training every single year. For that reason, I think that we should remove the annual duty, but still push ahead with the rest of the wording of it. The final amendment 250b looks at also ensuring that there are additional training requirements undertaken when significant changes to legislation—all that is something that the minister will comment on. I will leave my colleague to speak to 258 in his own right. Thank you, Jamie. I now call on Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 258 and any other amendments in the group, Jeremy. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and fellow MSPs. Can I say first of all that I welcome all the amendments within this section? I think that they are really helpful and I hope that the committee will support them. If I can speak particularly to the amendment that I brought forward in amendment 258, there are a number of amendments that we will be looking at over the next few days, which I have introduced around disability. I think that disability and transport is a key issue and I welcome the moves that this bill makes. Obviously, everybody within this committee want everybody to be able to participate in society, but many disabled people face obstacles that obstruct that right. Public transport often can be the answer to that. On a personal issue, I am unable to drive and without public transport my life would be much more limited. That is true for many people, particularly within rural areas and other parts of Scotland. My amendment asks the Scottish Government to prepare a report in regard to how we can make transport accessible and the information that is available. Clearly, people who are blind or partially sighted often depend on audio announcements, mobile phone applications or advice from other people. The technology in this area is changing rapidly and I think that it would be helpful to have a report and then to see how we can take that forward over the next number of years. I do not think that this is simply limited to buses. I think that there are ways that we can radically change the information that is available for people using trains and other forms of public transport. That not only benefits the disabled person, him or herself, but actually benefits the rest of society. If we can have more people using public transport, then there is a carbon footprint but there is also an economic benefit because people with disabilities will then be able to go out, spend money and, more importantly, be able to earn money themselves by doing jobs. The number of disabled charities and people that I speak to who say that they cannot simply get to the job because of the transport available. That is a small step in making it more accessible, with the information available. I hope that both the Government and the committee will look favourably upon it. Mike Rumbles has asked to speak of this. Yes, I am referring to Jeremy Balfour's amendment 258. It says that the Scottish ministers must effectively ensure that all information about public transport services is provided in an accessible form. Later on, the member has said that accessible form means what the ministers say it means, but it includes the availability of information in audible form. Does this mean that audible information must be at every bus stop throughout the land and how practical is that? I think that the answer to that is no. It is impractical at the moment, but we do not know where technology is going, and that may well become available over the next number of years. For example, in Edinburgh, those of you that use Edinburgh buses will know that a lot of bus stops now have real-time information. I understand that that could possibly be put into audible form already, which would be a step forward. There are also many other things coming forward in regard to apps and iPhones, which could then also be used to give that information in audible form. It is not prescriptive that it has to happen. It is asking what is available and what could happen if you look at section 1A. I do hear what Jeremy Balfour says, but looking at the words of his amendment—we have to vote on the amendment or not—it says that it is not later than 12 months after the day of royal assent. That has to be available throughout the land, and I just do not think that that is practical. I think that you are making a valid point, but I do not think that it says that all the information has to be available in the audible form. It says that what steps has been taken to ensure that it is available. Now that does not necessarily mean that all of the information will be available at every bus stop, so I wonder whether that is a better way to approach it. It is not being prescriptive that all of the information must be available within 12 months of the passing of the bill. I am just looking at what it actually says in English in the amendment. It says that, not later than 12 months after the day of royal assent, Scottish ministers must publish a report setting out what steps they have taken to ensure that all information about public transport services is provided in accessible form and the explanation within the amendment accessible form means the availability of information in audible form. I read that as being what it says. I am going to bring in John Finnie and then I am probably going to ask the cabinet secretary to see if he can shed some light on it. Mr Finnie John. Yes. I hear what Mike says there, but I have to say that I do not see it as—I think it would be perfectly competent for the Scottish minister to say that we are aware of this developing situation and we are hopefully moving towards that. As Jeremy Balfour said, there is an extremely fast-moving situation. Not everyone has apps on their phone, but people with disability have had great benefit from some apps that are available, and I think that this is just trying to— No other members indicated that they wish to speak. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can shed some light on that and other matters. The amendment in this group deals with the important issue of accessibility and allows me to begin by agreeing with the importance of making public transport accessible for everyone. Scottish ministers have made clear their expectations that Scotland's public transport providers will continually improve their performance to help disabled people to make better journeys. For our part, the Government is taking a whole series of actions and making investments to make that happen. From our work to design new trunk road projects, including for people with mobility or sensory impairment, to our investment in the national concessionary travel scheme for disabled people. As we discussed in the context of bus service improvement partnership plans on 10 June, it is worth noting that there is an existing legal framework that currently makes provision about the duties on Scottish public authorities in relation to accessibility. For example, the public sector equality duty set out in the Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities to, among other things, have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant characteristic and those who do not. Distinct legal obligations on transport service and infrastructure providers, including in respect of accessible information, can be found in the 2010 act and in other passenger rights legislation. I am happy to give them to you. On the Equalities and Human Rights Committee a couple of weeks ago, we took evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and they told us that the public sector equality duty was not being adhered to in a local authority. Can you give a guarantee that you can put pressure on local authorities and transport services to adhere to that? We already do, but let us not forget that it is a legal duty that is required to take forward. It is important that we continue to press them in doing that. The Equalities Act is the primary piece of legislation that is responsible for ensuring that that happens. I am happy to give way to Mr Smith. Can you clarify whether that duty is a duty on regional transport agencies? Are they included in the list of bodies that are covered by that duty? My concern is that they are not currently covered by it? Yes, they are. All our agencies are covered by that duty. With that in mind, I point out that all the mechanisms that have just been referred to in relation to the Equalities Act, there are provisions for complaints and enforcement provisions around them to ensure that they are appropriately adhered to. Those are duties that the relevant bodies must implement in order to improve accessibility performance. Although there is significant existing provision that is seeking to promote and also secure access to services for disabled people, we should always take the opportunity to improve matters where there is a need and where this Parliament has the power to do so. With that in mind, Collin Smith's amendments 2, 3, 3 and 2, 4, 3 seek to give powers to Scottish ministers by regulation to make provision in a bus service improvement partnership plan or scheme and in a franchising framework for the standards and requirements to be specified in respect of the accessibility of bus services for disabled people and persons with limited mobility. I have noted Collin Smith's views on those amendments and I agree that additional clarity and flexibility in that context may be useful and I therefore ask the committee to support amendments 2, 3, 3 and 2, 4, 3. Amendment 109 from Collin Smith on accessibility of new or refurbished stopping places seeks to amend the Transport Scotland Act 2001 by creating a new duty on local transport authorities to ensure that new or refurbished stopping places comply with the requirements set out in subsection 2A to 2D. The physical location and features of bus stops are the responsibility of roads authorities who are already bound by the Equalities Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments in exercising their functions, including taking steps to avoid any disadvantage that a disabled person might suffer as a result of a physical feature. They are also bound by general public sector equality duty under the 2010 act. Those authorities are therefore already required to ensure that the design and location of bus stops in their area comply with those duties and take into account the needs of users more generally. In addition, provision made in the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2010 ensure that all buses and coaches are made more accessible. There are approximately 4,100 buses in the Scottish fleet of which 98 per cent are accessible or have low-floor buses. Amendment 109 is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, there are a number of technical difficulties that make the legal effect of amendment 109 unclear. For example, the amendment confers a duty on the local transport authority rather than on the roads authority. It is unclear how local transport authorities could comply with the duty imposed on them, given that the powers and functions relating to bus stops are not conferred directly on them. Although I can see that amendment 109A and 109B from Jamie Greene are intended to make the duty created in amendment 109 more focused and proportionate, in my view, the duty would still be unnecessary and would still suffer from technical issues, which would make its legal effect unclear. Amendment 250 from Colin Smith relating to disability awareness training seeks to make a further amendment to the Transport Scotland Act 2001, inserting a new duty on operators of local services to ensure that public service vehicle drivers receive disability awareness training annually and require them to publish information as to the steps that they have taken in making such training available. This amendment also gives local transport authorities the function of authorising providers of this training. It is my view that this amendment is not required as operators of local services have, since March 2018, been required by EU law to ensure that drivers receive disability awareness training. I welcome the fact that the UK Government's commitment to publish best practice guidance during the course of this year to assist operators in complying with that training requirement. Amendment 25A and 25B from Jamie Greene would alter the duty created by amendment 250 by removing the requirement for it to be provided annually and providing that the training needs only be updated when there is a substantial change in legislation relating to disability issues. While those amendments are intended to make the duty created more proportionate, I consider that amendment 250, as it is originally drafted, is not required and in any event may fall out of the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Jeremy Balfour's amendment 25A would require ministers to prepare and lay before Parliament a report about the steps that they have taken to ensure the accessibility of information about public services. In doing this, ministers would be required to consult with specific bodies and set out how any recommendations would be handled. Convener, at this point, it is important to recognise what work has already been undertaken in this field and also what reporting arrangements are already in place. As a committee will be aware, this Government has been working to improve the accessibility of information in a range of formats for passengers. For example, we have been working with the UK Government to design the regulations that will require audio-visual information to be provided on buses, an issue that will be debated in a later group. More broadly, the independent mobility and access committee for Scotland can advise ministers on any transport accessibility issues affecting disabled people, including through their annual report, which is laid before Parliament. That means that there is already a mechanism for doing arm's length review of those issues. Max is comprised of a majority of disabled people and determines its own work programme. I am not persuaded that an additional reporting requirement in this context will advance practical change. However, I am happy to draw to the attention of Max at this committee's consideration of the issue. For all those reasons, I would ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 109 and 250, Jeremy Balfour not to move amendment 109A, 109B, 250A and 250B, and Jeremy Balfour not to move amendment 258. If they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. However, I would ask the committee to support Colin Smyth's amendments 233 and 243. Colin Smyth, can I ask you to wind up please and press or withdraw your amendment? Thank you very much, convener. I think that all the amendments in this group are intended to improve accessibility on our buses in terms of using biceps and franchises to ensure vehicles best out of the circumstances, to improve bus stops in terms of accessibility and to ensure adequate regular training for those driving our buses. I welcome the Government's support for amendment 233 and 243, so I will move them in relation to 109 and 250, including not to move them. However, I would be keen to have further discussions with the Government on how we tackle some of the difficulties that currently happen in relation to ensuring that training for drivers is done on a regular basis rather than just a one-off and I appreciate that the UK Government is publishing guidance on that wider issue. However, we also avoid the current difficulties whereby, for example, we have new bus stops being developed that are simply not accessible and do result in difficulties. For example, floating bus stops where cycle lanes are running between the pavement and the bus are a hazard to people with visual impairments and we need to look at ways in which we can strengthen the current guidance to ensure that those anomalies are not there. Is there the right to bring those amendments back at stage 3, but I will not move them at this point and hope that the Government will have discussions on a way forward? Sorry, can I just confirm? Are you pressing on with drawing amendment 233? Press and 233 and 244, we'll come to the others in due course. The question therefore at the stages amendment 233 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed, the question therefore is section 29 be agreed, are we all agreed? We now move on to bus service improvement partnership consultation on making variation and revocation of partnership proposals. I'm going to call amendment 234 in the name of Jamie Greene grouped with amendments as shown in the grouping. Jamie Greene, can you move amendment 234 and speak to the amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. It's quite a long grouping, so I'll keep my comments to my own three amendments in this group. I think that would be helpful in the interests of time. Amendment 234 is around what defines a sufficient number of persons is in terms of objections to the creation of a BSIP. Can I refer members back to our stage 1 report on this? Recommendation 130 talks in detail about some of the confusion around how an assessment is made as to what constitutes a sufficient number. The Scottish Government's response to this states that what constitutes a sufficient number will be set out in regulations. I suspect that's what the minister will say to me. However, I would advocate that the text of the bill sets out a general definition of the term sufficient number but acknowledges that there may be local variation. However, that variation should not allow for a definition that effectively neuters the provisions intended purpose of allowing bus operators to the opportunity to reject a BSIP and that it regards perhaps as unbalanced. Section 30 of the bill suggests that a sufficient number may be old persons providing local services or such a number to provide a proportion of the qualifying local services. I think that this is open to too much interpretation what constitutes a sufficient number should be agreed on at the start of the process. In my view, perhaps the traffic commissioner would be best placed to decide if the Government feels that it's not the traffic commissioner. I'd be happy if that wording was replaced by someone else, but I think that that's open to debate. Amendment 236 is a consequential to 234, so my next and final substantial amendment is 235. This is about consultation. Section 30 states that if a local authority wishes to postpone any part of a BSIP, they must consult all operators who may be affected by the postponement, which is fine and good, but it does not state that the local authority must take into account the findings of such a consultation process, or indeed that that consultation process should include a discussion on whether postponement of the local authority's commitments should also mean a similar postponement applied to the conditions imposed on operators. Amendment 235 seeks to ensure that due regard is paid to such consultations and hopefully provides some parity between the local authorities and the operators, and I'll leave them comments there. Can I ask Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 83 and any other amendments in the group, Colin? Thank you very much, convener. As with amendments 7 to 1 in a previous group, in amendments 83, 85, 87, 89, 91 and 93 expand the consultation and notification processes to include people living in the area beyond simply existing service users. Again, that ensures that a wider group of people are able to participate and will help to identify the challenges that prevent people from using buses as it stands. We need to increase the number of people using our buses, and that requires engaging with people who, for a range of reasons, may be put off using them at present. Again, amendments 84, 86, 88, 90, 92 and 94 serve the same purpose as amendments 70 and 72 in a previous group. I've covered the reason behind those amendments already, so I'll be brief. Those amendments give local transport authorities specific responsibilities around engaging with those living in poverty and those with relevant protected characteristics, while developing BSIPs in order to ensure plans delivered for those groups and to incorporate their needs and their priorities. I think that that covers all my amendments. Now that other members are speaking in debate, the cabinet secretary. Given the size of this group, there are a considerable number of issues for me to cover in my contribution. Amendment 234 and 236 seeks to address the issue of what will constitute a sufficient number of persons who are operators of qualifying local services to the making, varying or evoking of a BSIP scheme, who can object to and potentially prevent that scheme or scheme from progressing. Powers of Scottish ministers by regulation to specify what constitutes a sufficient number of persons by the remove will be removed by amendment 236. In its place, amendment 234 will require LTAs to seek the approval of the traffic commissioner on what would constitute a sufficient number of persons. The Scottish Government has consistently stated that the issue of what constitutes a sufficient number will be addressed in regulation and will need to reflect a wide range of possible scenarios. It is not envisaged at this stage that the sufficient number will be specified in future regulations with reference to a specific number, but it is likely to be calculated according to a formula. Further engagement and wide consultation with all interested parties, including local transport authorities and bus operators, will be undertaken on this issue to ensure that the model fits in a Scottish context, takes account of the market dynamics in Scotland and takes account of the views of operators large and small. Further, it is possible that the formula will require to be modified over time in relation to changing market dynamics. As such, regulations are the most appropriate mechanism for this in order to specify the way the number is calculated, which will allow sufficient clarity, ease of use and transparency of process. The committee in its stage 1 report asked me to carefully consider how the assessment is made. Mr Greene is correct that this is a matter that should be taken forward through regulation making powers that are included in the bill and which also attracts the affirmative procedure, which reflects the fact that we give greater significance to the proposed approach to the issue and consider it correct that the regulations in this matter should be endorsed and considered by Parliament. In light of this commitment, I would ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 234 or to move amendment 236. However, if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. Amendment 235 by Jamie Greene seeks to insert a provision relating to the postponement of the coming into force of a BSIP scheme. That provision relates to LTAs to have due regard to representations made to them during the consultation process and also consider whether any obligations on operators of local services should also be postponed in those circumstances. I do not think that this amendment is necessary. We would expect, as a matter of good administration, that the LTA will always have due regard to all representations made to them during all the consultation process in the making of a BSIP. That needs not be expressed on the face of the bill in relation to the consultation process individually. Secondly, if a BSIP scheme is postponed, then all the obligations in the scheme are also postponed. As such, the amendment would appear unnecessary. I would ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 235. If the amendment is pressed, however, I would ask the committee to reject it. I believe that Colin Smith amendments 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94 are related to amendment 71 and 72, which have already been considered in the BSIP section in content on partnership planning grouping. You will recall that amendment 71 and 72 seek to impose additional requirements as to the content and definition of and consultation on BSIP plans and schemes. As far as plans and objectives are concerned, a bill that is introduced gives wide scope to LTAs to set the objectives to be met by BSIP schemes as regard to the quality and effectiveness of services and significant flexibility to set route and service standards to meet those objectives. Those objectives and the associated standards may include objectives and standards specifically aimed at meeting the needs of those on low incomes and those at whose ability to use local services is affected by having a protected characteristic. Further, the consultation and notice requirements included in the bill as introduced are extensive. They require general notice of partnership proposals and or proposals to vary plans and schemes in force in such manner as the LTA considers appropriate in order to bring them to the notice of persons in their area as well as specific requirements to consult organisations representing the users of local services. BSIP plans themselves must contain details on how the LTA intends to obtain the views of users of local services as to how well the plan and scheme under it are operating. All of this is considered sufficient to ensure that adequate notice is given to and consultation is undertaken with anybody, including those affected by poverty who may be impacted by BSIP plans and schemes. Importantly, the approach taken by the bill as introduced imposes those requirements in a way that is clear and practically achievable. Amendment 83 to 94 would make matters less clear and indeed, in some instances, would impose duties that are practically unachievable. In particular, amendment 84, 86, 88, 90, 92 and 94 would appear to require LTAs to give notice or to consult a person who has experience of poverty. Poverty in this context is not defined and would be very challenging to define. However, if such a definition were possible, it would be simply impossible to identify, consult and give notice to every person who has that experience. Amendments 83, 85, 87, 89, 91 and 93 would require notice to be given to and consultation with organisations appearing to the LTA to be representative of any person living and working in the area who are not users of the local services. Again, this is such a potentially wide and vague category that discharging the obligation would, in practical terms, be very challenging. Finally, I would add that the consultation on bus service proceedings, the preceding of the bill, made clear that quality partnerships and quality contract schemes, which came into force almost two decades ago, were not used because they were considered too difficult to put in place. I do not want to repeat that area with bus service improvement partnerships. We all have sympathy with Mr Smith's aims here. I consider his intentions to be laudable. I urge him not to press amendments from 83 to 94. However, if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to wind up and press your amendment or withdraw it? Thank you, cabinet secretary, for that very detailed and in-depth response to our amendments. The luck of the draw means that I get the chance to respond and I would like to respond. I have to withdraw 2, 3, 4 and 2, 3, 6, based on the information that was given around that this will be set out in regulations and will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. That is the right thing to do. That was perhaps not clear or understood prior to my reading of the bill, so I thank the minister for that. On the issue of 2, 3, 5, I want to pick up a point as to what I think is important. As it stands at the moment on the section of the bill, on consulting of the postponement to the coming into operation of a scheme, it simply says that, before making a decision whether or not to do so, local transport authorities must consult all operators who are likely to be affected. I do pose the scenario. What would happen if all the operators said no to the postponement but the local authority pushed ahead? In your comments, cabinet secretary, you did say that there is an expectation that the Government has that due regard will be given, but it may be the case that due regard is not given to the responses from the consultation. That is why I feel that, at the very least part B of my amendment, it says that the due regard should be given to the representation received by them as a result of the consultation is actually quite useful and indeed quite powerful. We do use this language quite often in amendments in legislation, but there is no point just consulting for consulting sake due regard must be given to the outcome. I would wonder if I was minded to not move it in its entirety to perhaps remove section C and bring it back with the due regards element of it. It may be looked upon more favourably at stage 3, and that will probably be my intention. Thank you. Jamie, can I just confirm that you said that you do not wish to press amendment 234? Not move 234. There is a chance now that we are going to get through quite a bit, but I just want to go through and say that Jamie Greene wants to withdraw amendment 234. Does any member object? No member has objected, therefore the amendment is withdrawn. I call amendment 234 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 234 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes, four and nine votes against, therefore amendment 83 is not agreed. I now call amendment 84 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes, four and nine votes against, therefore amendment 83 is not agreed. I call amendment 85 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore there is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes, four and nine votes against, therefore amendment 85 is not agreed. I call amendment 86 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Therefore, those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes in favour, nine votes against, therefore amendment 86 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 235 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 234. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 87 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes in favour, nine votes against, therefore amendment 87 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 88 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Can I also those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. No, we can't. There are two votes for, there's nine votes against, therefore amendment 88 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 89 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes in favour, nine votes against, therefore amendment 89 is not agreed. I call amendment 90 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for, there's nine votes against, therefore amendment 90 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 91 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. I'll do that as well. I'm awake now. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 91 is not agreed. I call amendment 92 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed. Are we all agreed? There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for, there are nine votes against, therefore amendment 92 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 93 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed. Are we all agreed? There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for, there are nine votes against, therefore amendment 93 is not agreed. I call amendment 94 in the name of Colin Smyth already debated with amendment 234. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for, and there are nine votes against, therefore amendment 94 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 236 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 234. Jamie Greene, to move or not moved. Let's try this one. The question is that section 30 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, we'll move on to the next section, which is bus service improvement partnerships regulation on registration of local services. I'd like to call amendment 237 in the name of Neil Bibby grouped with amendment 238. Neil Bibby, to move amendment 237 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Scotland currently has the weakest bus laws in Britain, and this bill is an opportunity to change that. As we've seen this morning, there are different opinions about the extent to which the public sector should own or operate bus services. However, with the bus passenger numbers falling to a record low, there is surely no dispute that new regulations must be introduced into the bus market. Those regulations should shift power from the owners of the big bus companies to passengers and communities. The amendments in this group, 237 and 238, seek to do just that, introduce new regulations into the bus market. It is by definition re-regulation. The origin of the amendments in this group can be traced to Strathclyde partnership for transport's 10-point plan. The Transport Act 1985 grants ministers regulation-making powers to bring section 6 of the act, registration of local services into effect. The purpose of amendment 237 is to grant Scottish ministers an additional regulation-making power. The amendment grants Scottish ministers the regulation-making power to limit the circumstances in which an operator may apply to vary or cancel a registration. That allows ministers to make regulations in the interests of passengers which limit the power to operators to withdraw or vary services. That could mean, for example, restricting the dates on which services could be varied or withdrawn. It could mean much stricter regulation. Public transport is a public service. It should be running in the public interest. That amendment seeks to re-establish that principle. Amendment 238 enables regulations to require an operator to make its annual accounts available to the traffic commissioner and the local transport authority. In practice, that would allow local transport authorities to determine that operators enjoying an effective monopoly and seeking a public subsidy are not seeking an excessive subsidy or engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. That would go some way to reassuring transport authorities about the activities of bus operators. It would also address one of the other key points in the SPT's 10-point plan for bus services, guaranteeing better information with the transport authority. Given that the commercial operators have to lodge their accounts in the public domain via companies' houses, is he aware of any operator of such services who does not publish their accounts in the public domain already? I am raising those concerns on behalf of the staff group partnership for transport, who are concerned about the access that they have to accounts to look at how bus operators are running services, not just their overall accounts but their claims about certain routes being profitable or unprofitable. That is the key question here. It is not the overall level of accounts that is the access to see whether claims about the requirement for a subsidy are justified or not. On 237, my concern is that, as it reads and I am willing to be corrected in summing up, is that this actually limits the circumstances in which an operator can vary or cancel a registration. That is exactly what it says. I am still a bit unsure as to why the member would want to limit the ability to do so, so I would be minded to not support that. However, I do have some sympathy to the 238. Stewart Stevenson made a point in his intervention. Those accounts are likely to be, not necessarily guaranteed to be, publicly available. I would question whether it is actualy annual accounts that you want to see to get the information that you need. I have no problem with making that information available to the traffic commissioner or the LTI or indeed to anyone else that it sees fit to do. I would be happy to support that, but I wonder whether it might be better to bring this amendment back. In detail addresses the concern of SPT, what information is it that they think is missing? What do they think they currently do not have access to and put that in instead? I do not think that annual accounts and their top-level, macro-level will give you the sort of information that will meet their concerns. Amendment 232 gives ministers the power to regulate to limit the circumstances under which an operator can apply to various cancer registrations. I support that and give ministers the power. I think that we have to recognise that passengers are frustrated with ever declining bus service and I think that there may be a need for ministers to introduce tighter regulations on when and how services can be cancelled. I appreciate that it is a complex area, so I think that it is right that this amendment does not call for anything at this point or to put anything binding on the face of the bill, but it does enable action to be taken in the future if it is required. In terms of amendment 238, again it is a regulation making power this time allowing regulations on the need for operators to share their accounts. I think that that will help to identify instances where competition is not working as it should in an area and where operators are receiving excessive subsidies for delivering the service. I think that that is a major problem, but despite the significant amount of money given directly to bus operators, there is a scrutiny of the process in areas where there is an effective monopoly, such as large parts of my home region in Dumfries and Galloway, it can be possible for the transport authority to know whether the subsidy of the panel really is fair or not, given that it is a complex area. I agree with the approach that has been taken in the decision to put yet, absolutely. Will you want the private bus company to give you the information per route on whether it is making a profit or not? Is that along the lines of what Mr Bibby's might be pushing for rather than annual accounts will not tell you then, because it will say that they made a profit of X, but individual accounts on the individual routes may tell you something? The amendment itself is an enabling amendment that will be up to the Government to set out exactly what information should be provided. The big challenge that we have is that often a bus is running. If there is a subsidised service, that monopoly will effectively say how much that service is going to cost to run. Exact profit margin is a mystery. You can always guess at it, but we do not know exactly what it is, and sometimes it can be excessive. That is a challenge for regional transport agencies, for local authorities. Are they getting value for money when subsidising these services and the lack of information makes that incredibly challenging? John Finnie, I am supportive of the amendments. It is, for many of the reasons that I outlined, about public accountability. I think that the public expects that. First and foremost, I think that there still remains a considerable misunderstanding about the public sector involvement in bus services. It is not as extensive as many people imagine, but when it is, there is involvement and there is subsidy of routes, then there should be absolute clarity about whether profits are excessive or not. Amendment 237 by Neil Bibby seeks to amend section 31 of the bill, adding to the amendments that it makes to section 6 of the Transport Act 1985. The effect of the amendment would be to enable regulations made under section 69 of the 1985 act to make provision limiting the circumstance in which the operator of a service can vary or cancel the registration of that service. The provisions of this kind would be unworkable in the context of the existing registration scheme that we have, the role of the traffic commissioner and the legislative landscape that underpins these elements. It is also unnecessary as operators are already required to give 28 days notice of any proposal to vary or change a registration and this ensures that local authorities and RTPs affected by such a change can take steps to address any effect that this would have on service provision in the area. Amendment 238 would require bus operators to make available annual accounts to the traffic commissioner and LTAs as soon as reasonably practicable. It is not entirely clear what the purpose of this amendment is. Operators are already required to satisfy the traffic commissioner that they have appropriate financial standing by reference to audited annual accounts as part of the public service vehicle licensing regime. Bus operators, like all commercial companies, publish consolidated annual accounts as a matter of course, and this amendment would appear to add little to that requirement. The amendment, as it stands, relates to the publication of annual accounts, not accounts relating to individual routes. Therefore, I would ask Neil Bibby not to press amendment 237 and 238. However, if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. Neil Bibby, can I ask Neil Bibby for you to wind up, please? Thank you, convener. My earlier remarks are reference to the SPT's 10-point plan, Stratley Partnership for Transport. It is the largest local transport authority in Scotland. Their 10-point plan was launched several years ago to stimulate debate about bus services and influence changes in policy at a national level. My intention is to deliver a high standard of service to passengers, recognising the role of public sector, but also the restrictions on the public sector through underfunding and deregulation. They believe and I believe that that will allow us to introduce new regulations into the bus market, which rebalance power away from the bus companies and towards passengers, communities and democratically elected local authorities. For those reasons, I will press both of those amendments. Thank you. The question, therefore, is that amendment 237 be agreed? Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for. There are nine votes against. Therefore, amendment 237 is not agreed. I call amendment 238 in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 237. Neil Bibby, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 238 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes for. There are nine votes against. Therefore, amendment 238 is not agreed. I now want to look at the bus improvement partnerships, traffic commissioner, powers to scrutinise, and I'm going to call amendment 95 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group on its own, cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 95, please. Convener, the committee stage 1 report stated that the enforcement of compliance with BSIPs may lack balance as the traffic commissioner will have jurisdiction to enforce the operator's commitments but not those of local authorities. In order for a partnership to be truly effective, a level playing field should apply insofar as is possible. To this end, I have brought forward amendment 95 to the bill to ensure that the traffic commissioner can investigate the actions of a local transport authority in relation to the exercise of its duties in a bus service improvement partnership, prepare and publish a report on the investigation and make appropriate recommendations in circumstances where the commissioner finds that the LTA is not complying with obligations under the bus service improvement partnership. I move amendment 95. No members are asked to speak in this debate. Cabinet secretary, I assume your opening statement was your wind-up and therefore the question is that amendment 95 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is therefore that section 31 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I'm now going to move on to the franchising framework and franchising agreement and the content of that. I'm going to call amendment 213 in the name of Jamie Greene, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to move amendment 213 and speak to all amendments in the group? Thanks, convener. I hope members will bear with me. I know that it's been a long morning. Those are largely quite technical amendments. 213 is, I think, quite self-explanatory. It requires that a franchise framework must conclude a provision as to how disputes can resolve between the local transport authority and the service operator. This is fairly standard practice in most commercial contracts of this nature and I think it's normal to predetermine dispute resolution mechanisms and I'm hoping that the minister will look favourably upon this addition 214. I also think that it's important given how expensive a business is to operate a franchise and the pressure will put on local authorities who wish to pursue such models. We talked a lot about this as we took evidence of stage 1. The bill already states that it's true to say that the local authorities must set an analysis of the financial implications of making the framework. My amendments go a little bit further and add some specific detail in that assessment, which includes an assessment of the costs to establish and run a service, the projected profitability, or not as the case may be, and, importantly, in a comparative analysis of how the proposed framework will impact how services are currently funded. Local authorities are already subsidising services through other mechanisms if they were to move to a different model how the moving of funds from that subsidy to operating a new service would be impacted by doing so or by making that move. Really, the intention of that amendment is to ensure that the financial assessment has been performed and published to the highest possible standard, so I'm keen to hear some thoughts on that. This amendment states that the auditor of the franchise should be appointed by the traffic commissioner. The reason for that is that, given that local authorities, by their very nature, can be political, an authority that has begun the process of introducing a franchise should not be the body to appoint an auditor of the process. I think that neutrality is absolutely essential and what could be perhaps a contentious environment. I think that the appointment of the auditor should fall to the traffic commissioner, in my view. I think that that is a role that is independent and highly regarded. I think that this would mirror the bill's provision that the commissioner appoints the panel to consider the final franchise proposal, therefore they should also consider the auditor. That is the point of 239. Finally, 240, I think that this is going back to the issue of postponement. I appreciate it in this grouping. I don't think that there's any, again, no clear guidance as to where an authority has to pay due regard to the consultation process, but I think that any operator, be they the winner of a franchise or not, would be able to adjust, for example, its short notice to the postponement or variation of a franchise if they've already made significant capital investment in such. Unlike within a partnership agreement, the imposition of a franchise may mean that an operator has to take significant changes to their business. Meanwhile, a successful bidder may have invested a considerable resource. Those are decisions that cannot be worn back by an operator and the operator would be left with costs thereof. This amendment makes it clear that if an authority decides to postpone or vary a franchise framework, then there should be sensible consultation on if or how the local authority might seek to compensate operators for any losses as a result of the postponement. I'm happy to stop there. Jamie Cullin, can I ask you to speak to amendment 96 and any other amendments in the group, please? Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 96 serves the same purpose to amendments already debated in previous groups in relation to BSIPs. It requires consultations specifically with those living in poverty and those with relevant protected characteristics as part of the development of franchising. I have to say that the current bill falls very short when it comes to tackling those issues. I believe it enough. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Cymru amendment 213 seeks to add to section 13A3 of the Transport Scotland Act 2001. A requirement for a franchising framework must include provision on how disputes between a local transport authority and a person operating local services in the area of the framework are to be resolved. It's also not clear what type of disputes would be captured by this provision. Further, it is a franchise agreement that creates the contractual relationship between the LTA and an operator of a local service under a franchise, and that is where it would be more appropriate that dispute resolution should be used to address the matter. LTAs would require to keep a franchise framework under review and complaints from operators, franchisees or not, and anyone else, such as bus users, should form part of that. Therefore, I ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 213. If the amendment is pressed, I would ask the committee to reject it. Amendment 96 by Colin Smyth seeks to require an LTA to put mandatory conditions on how the needs of certain persons will be provided for in the contractual franchising agreement with the operator providing a franchise service. That is similar to amendment 70, considered in an earlier grouping, although that relates to the BSIP model. As with BSIP, I believe that franchising process will address that in a better way at a far earlier stage. The franchising process is deliberately a very thorough exercise of development, assessment, audit, consultation and application for approval. Proper analysis of the needs of local bus users would be considered as a key part of any engagement process at a nearly stage in developing such a proposal. That analysis would include consideration of the needs of persons with low income, whose income is adversely affected, whose expenditure is increased or whose experience or ability to use local services is likely to be affected, because it has one or more of the protected characteristics far before the point of entering into the agreements. Therefore, I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 96, however, if it is pressed, I would ask the committee to reject it. Amendment 214 by Jamie Greene seeks to add to section 13E2 of the 2001 act, a requirement that the financial assessment carried out by the LTA on the proposed franchising framework includes certain specific information. That is the type of thing that we would certainly expect to be in a financial assessment. As part of the implementation of the bill, Scottish ministers must issue guidance in relation to an assessment of a proposed franchise framework. That guidance will be extremely detailed and will cover the things that the amendment suggests. It is important to do that in guidance rather than by a firm rule in the bill, as a guidance will be developed with stakeholder engagement and will allow for adaptability as practice develops. Therefore, I ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 214. Amendment 239 by Jamie Greene seeks to amend section 13E2 of the 2001 act, inserting by section 32 of the bill to the effect that the traffic commissioner, instead of the local transport authority, would obtain the report of an auditor of the financial aspects of the assessment of a proposed franchise framework. Auditors are a regulated profession and legislation contains detailed provision on statutory audits and their obligations. Additionally, it is the LTA who requires to consider the report of the auditor to determine if they are to proceed with the proposed franchise framework, not the traffic commissioner. I think that the proposal in amendment 239 would represent a further unnecessary stage for anyone considering franchising to have to undertake. The provisions of the bill are already robust and I do not see the need to make the process any more difficult than is necessary. That would clearly have financial and resource implications for the traffic commissioner, which have not been considered or discussed with the UK Government as they fund the commission's function. Therefore, I ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 239. However, if it is pressed, I would ask the committee to reject it. Amendment 240 by Jamie Greene seeks to add a requirement for an LTA to consult operators of local services who are likely to be affected on how to compensate those operators when the LTA seeks to postpone either the commencement of a franchising framework or a variation of a franchising framework. There is already a requirement on an LTA to consult operators of local services who are likely to be affected when they are considering the postponement of the coming into operation of a franchise framework or a variation to an existing one. That amendment seeks to add in a requirement to consult on how the LTA proposes to compensate those operators. To add an obligation to consult as to proposals for compensation would not create anything more than a consultation duty and would create the expectation that operators would be entitled to something that there was no basis for. Persponement can only be for up to 12 months, so there is a finite amount of time. This effect can last for operators, and Scottish ministers have the powers to amend this period should practice show that it is unsuitable. Franchising is a big and potentially very costly intervention in the bus market that will have taken a very lengthy time to get to this stage. It is vital to give LTAs the opportunity to deliver it properly and have reasonable postponement where necessary. The obligation is currently in the bill to consult operators who may be affected is adequate to cover all scenarios without adding an undue burden on LTAs of considering compensation and creating an unrealistic expectation for operators. Therefore, I ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 240. However, if the amendment is pressed, I would ask the committee to reject it. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment? Thanks, convener. I'll just very briefly. I take on board the cabinet secretary's point on that. On 214, in many answers to some amendments that were given the answer, that this will all be dealt with in guidance and that guidance needs flexibility. I think that that's all well and good, but the things that I've added in here, I think, would form a sensible foundation for that guidance. At which point would it be inappropriate for these items not to be in the financial reporting? I appreciate that the minister wants the flexibility to change the guidance as he sees fit, but those are just the basics that I think they should be in those assessments. I don't think that they're particularly onerous requirements and may be there anyway, but this will done to pin them being there. I hear what he says on 239, but my question remains, and I don't think that that question has been answered as who points the auditor. I appreciate the rest of the response given, but it's still unclear as to whether that would be the local transport force to themselves or, indeed, the other body. I take on the body's point about 240 as well, and I wouldn't move that. Jamie Greene wishes to withdraw amendment 213. Does any member object? There's no objection, so the amendments are withdrawn. I'd like to call amendment 96 in the name of Colin Smyth, who's already debated with amendment 213. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is, amendment 96 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes in favour. There's nine votes against, therefore amendment 96 is not agreed. I'd like to call amendment 214 in the name of Jamie Greene, who's already debated with amendment 213. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? I'd therefore call amendment 239 in the name of Jamie Greene, who's already debated with amendment 213. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Right. We're going to go on to the next section. Can I just say to members of the committee that I'm trying to work out timings for this? There is some benefit from trying to push on slightly, so that either Neil Bibby and Jeremy Balford don't have to come back this evening to move their amendments. I realise that that may be some pressure, but I am asking for a wee bit of flexibility to see how far we can go. I'd like to push on with the minor technical amendments and call amendment 97 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, group with amendment 99, 100 and 101. I point out that if amendment 215 to be debated in the next group is agreed, I cannot call amendment 99, 100 and 101. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to move amendment 97 and speak to the other amendments in the group? Amendment 97, 99, 100 and 101 are minor in nature. The correct terminology used in section 32 of the bill, amendment 97 and 100, replaced the word franchising with franchise in section 13L2 and 13R2A of the Transport Scotland Act 2001, amendment 99 and 101, in reference to franchise agreement in sections 13R1 and 13R2, which is not quite correct. I move amendment 97. Thank you. Now that the member has asked to speak in that debate, so Cabinet Secretary, I'm sure you feel you've said enough. On that basis, the question is, amendment 97 be agreed, are we all agreed? I call amendment 240 in the name of Jamie Green already debated with amendment 213. Jamie Green, to move or not move? I call amendment 98 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary already debated with amendment 81. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally please. Question is, amendment 98 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed, so we're going on to multi-authorities and regional transport partnerships. I'm going to call amendment 215 in the name of Jamie Green, grouped with amendment 241. I point out that if amendment 215 is agreed, I cannot call amendments 99, 100 and 101 due to a preemption. Jamie Green, can I ask you to move amendment 215 and speak to both amendments in the group? Thanks. It's only one amendment that I've got here, thankfully. It's about multi-authority franchising. It adds a new section into the bill. At the moment, the bill allows multi-authority franchising, which is made up of two more local authorities. I've copy pasted that wording. You'll be pleased to know it and simply added it in two additional bodies to that one, which is regional transport partnerships and Scottish ministers. You're probably asking yourself why. In effect, I think that this just wants to expand this power. I think that Colin Smith's version of that also allows regional transport partnerships to create franchises. That's a sensible thing. I take it a slightly step further and give it more flexibility. I think that there could be a whole number of variations within local authorities and regional transport partnerships coalescing around the setting up of a franchise. There may be technical reasons why that's not possible or indeed not helpful. I'm sure that the current secretary will inform me of such. To give you just one practical example that I think may be put some substance to this, at the moment, if you want to get from Addrossan to Edinburgh by bus, it takes three and a half hours. It involves three separate bus operators and requires two interchanges. In that scenario, if no single private commercial operator wanted to intervene and run a direct service between Addrossan and Edinburgh, as is the case between Greenock and Edinburgh, for example, then it could be the case that North Ayrshire Council, SPT and Edinburgh City Council wish to set up such a route, indeed jointly fund such a route and operate such a route as a franchise. I'm hoping that my amendment gives them the ability to do that if such powers do not currently exist in the bill and I'm keen to hear any feedback as to whether that is a helpful addition or a cumbersome one. Thank you. Can I ask you to speak to amendment 241 and any other amendments in the group? Thank you very much. Amendment 241 in my name allows regional transport partnerships to run franchises as opposed to just model 3RTPs, which is what the current bill allows. This serves two purposes. Firstly, on a practical level, this was intended to complement my amendment looking to lift the ban on councils running bus services. In this scenario, as some have argued, there may be a potential conflict of interest in councils competing for franchises that are tender. I believe that amendment 241 would be one way forward to try to avoid this, although I would question the full extent to which there is a potential conflict of interest. However, an RTP award on a franchise in the same way that current RTPs, for example, that are model 3, are able to subsidise services. However, the amendment is aimed at facilitating a more regional approach to transport in a broad sense. Transport always requires co-operation across local authority borders and there will be instances where it is more appropriate for a franchise to be run at a regional level. However, as things currently stand, only three RTPs, such as SPT, Swiss Trans and Z Trans, will have the power to do that. Amendment 215 by Jim Green also looks at the role of regional transport partnership in franchises. I am not sure of the proposed role of ministers here, and indeed I am not sure whether it is necessary for multiple RTPs to have the power to act jointly on the matter, but I will listen to what other members have to say. I think that the key thing is to give RTPs and all RTPs the power to award and run franchises. Thank you, Colin. No other members indicated that they wish to speak in this great cabinet secretary. Amendment 215 by Jim Green and amendment 241 by Colin Smith seek to include regional transport partnerships alongside local transport authorities as parties able to act jointly to make a franchise framework and franchise agreement. Amendment 215 also seeks to extend that to include the Scottish ministers. I must agree with what I think is the principle behind those amendments that where relevant local authorities deem it appropriate, powers should be able to be made available to the relevant RTPs. Those amendments are not necessary or appropriate. Scottish ministers have existing powers to transfer any function they consider appropriate to RTPs by an order made under section 10 of the Transport Scotland Act 2005. The bill goes even further to make this clear and specifically amends the list of functions in section 10 of that act to include the new franchising function. That allows the Scottish ministers to do so as and when appropriate, and by following the procedure of making a statutory instrument that is laid in the Scottish Parliament. The bill as a whole has been drafted in a way to be future proofed for consideration in the review of the national transport strategy around transport governance. It does not attempt to pre-empt those considerations. I would add that there is no role for Scottish ministers in local services franchising, which is a local matter designed to address local bus needs and it is appropriate that it is delivered by local transport authorities. It is also important to ensure that the decision panel's role is decisive. Scottish ministers will engage with all stakeholders in producing guidance and regulations to support the franchising process to ensure that it is open, fair and transparent, but, as such, they cannot be said to be impartial in producing a framework, nor should they enter into specific agreements. With this in mind, I would ask Jamie Greene not to press amendment 215, and I would ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 214. However, if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to wind up and press it with Jory, your amendment please? I'm still a bit confused if local authority and the regional transport partnership could create a franchise and operate a service together under existing legislation, or whether it would require changes to the powers that they have via statutory instrument. If that is the case, why don't we just put it on the face of the bill now and be done with it? That would be my question. If the cabinet secretary can respond, it might be helpful whether I push it or not. As I said, I'm still unclear as to whether they can do the scenario that I mentioned. If it was SPT, it may be that they would require that authority, but in other instances it may not apply. There is not a clear specific answer to that. It depends on the circumstances. Okay, that's clear-ish. In that case, I'll continue to move my amendment on that basis. Okay, thank you very much. For my members, if amendment 215 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 99, 100 and 101. The question therefore at this stage is amendment 215 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are four votes in favour, there are seven votes against, therefore amendment 215 is not agreed. I'd like to call amendments 99, 100 and 101, all debated in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I'd like to invite the cabinet secretary to move the amendments 99, 100 and 101 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put to amendments 99, 100 and 101? The question therefore is that amendments 99, 100 and 101 are agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 241 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 215. Colin Smith to move or not move. Thank you. The question is amendment 241 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes in favour, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 241 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 242 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 232. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 242 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. Thank you. There are two votes for, there are nine votes against, therefore amendment 242 is not agreed. I call amendment 102 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 81. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes for, there are six votes against, therefore amendment 102 is not agreed. I call amendment 243 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 233. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 243 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 32 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Now I'm going to move on to the provision of information about local services and I'm going to call amendment 244 in the name of Neil Bibby. Grouped with amendments has shown in the grouping. Neil Bibby to move amendment 244 and speak to all amendments in the group. Neil Bibby to move amendment 244 in the group. Thank you, convener. I'll try and keep it brief. There are a number of amendments in this group. I wish to speak to amendments 244 and 246 in my name and briefly comment on those amendments lodged by other members. The purpose of amendment 244 in my name is to clarify that bus operators must share information on patronage and revenues with the local transport authority. Currently, the bill will require operators to share information relating to the number of passengers using the service, journeys made, fares paid and revenue obtained. I want to test the adequacy of the term relating to in this section of the bill. My amendment instead requires operators to share information setting out passenger numbers, bus journeys, fares paid and revenues. I believe that this clearer, more precise wording could help clarify what requirements will be placed on operators, nonetheless I will listen to the explanation from the minister on the language used on the bill as introduced. Amendment 246 is more substantial. This amendment places a duty on local authorities to notify the traffic commissioner about a change of bus route or significant change to timetabling. It also sets out how the traffic commissioner should respond to such a notification. That includes establishing a panel of free to determine whether to approve the change and it requires a panel to consult with the transport authority, bus operators and most importantly, bus users. The amendment not only shifts power from bus operators back to the community, but it guarantees passengers a sale over significant changes to local services. The committee will also know amendment 247 in the name of Colin Smyth, which would have a similar effect. It establishes a status duty to consult about change of bus routes or timetabling. The bill represents a significant opportunity to give voice to bus passengers. That is the purpose of those amendments, and I would encourage members of the committee to support them. Regarding the amendments in the name of the cabinet secretary, they appear to be largely practical amendments, either of technical amendments or consequential nature. There may be a concern about Jamie Greene's amendment 245, which appears to place restrictions on information sharing that are not necessary and not consistent with the spirit of the bill, but I am sure that committee members will of course listen to his explanation for the amendment and consider the case that he makes. To conclude, I would ask the committee to consider those amendments that bring democracy and accountability to public transport and enhance the power and position of passengers. I will call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 103 and any other amendments in the group. The effect of amendment 244 would be to narrow the power which at present covers information relating to the matters referred to in subsection 3, so that it would only cover information setting out the matters referred to in that subsection. Setting out could be read, for example, as only aggregate pattern age figures, whereas information relating to pattern age could be considered to include data on concessionaries and other broader demographic information, which would be likely to be more useful. I believe that the bill as introduced strikes a right balance to ensure requests are not too onerous for operators to provide, while giving sufficient flexibility through the regulation-making powers to ensure that local authorities can get the details they require to make informed decisions as to the effect of such a variation or cancellation, and the steps that may be required to take to address any effect on service provision in their area. The consultation requirements apply to the power to make regulations under subsection 3 at a level of protection to ensure that this balance is achieved. Government amendments 103, 104 and 105 are technical amendments to new section 6ZB2 and 3 of the Transport Act 1985. Those sections make provision for affected authorities to disclose information received from a bus operator who proposed to cancel or vary a registration, a registered local bus service to specify to specified persons in connection with an invitation to tender to provide a supplementary or replacement service. Those amendments will ensure that the disclosure provisions work effectively, regardless of which procurement procedure the affected authority chooses to use. Government amendment 106 is a consequential amendment to section 43 of the Transport Scotland Act 2001 and resolves a potential conflict in a way in which the provisions about disclosure of information requested under section 43 would operate where that information is provided, together with information requested under new section 67A of the Transport Act 1985. Government amendment 108 relates to the provisions being added to the Transport Scotland Act 2001, which will allow the Scottish ministers to make regulations requiring bus operators, local transport authorities and the traffic commissioner to share certain information on routes, timetables, fares, tickets and operational services with specified people. The amendment will allow those regulations to specify the Secretary of State as a person who may receive specified specific information. That would allow the Scottish ministers to ensure that such information is as is required for the effective operation of the UK-wide bus information system known as NAPTAN. It is shared with the UK Government who administer that scheme. The information is to be shared and will be set out in regulation. Amendment 245 from Jamie Greene seeks to restrict the information that operators can be required to provide about the operation of their service in the past under those regulations to information from the past two years. In order to reduce the burden on information providers, it is understandable that requests for past information should not span an unreasonable period of time. However, given the range of circumstances in which information may be required, I do not consider it to be practical or appropriate to set an arbitrary time limit in primary legislation. Regulations requiring the provision of information can only be laid before Parliament after the consultation requirements in new section 35A8 of the Transport Scotland Act 2001, as inserted by section 34 of the bill, have been complied with. Therefore, there will be full engagement with bus operators before the precise scope and nature of the information that they are to be required to share is finally determined. Those regulations will attract affirmative procedure and so there will be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of that requirement. Amendment 107, in Colin Smith's name, seeks to allow regulations made under the new section 35A to require information to be made available in accessible formats, including audible formats and braille. It is not clear whether Mr Smith is intended by this amendment that the regulations should be able to compel operators to make this information available to the end-user, namely passengers. If that is his intentions, I do not consider that the amendment would have the desired effect. More fundamentally, the Secretary of State already has a power under section 181A of the Equality Act 2010 to, by regulations, require operators of local services in Scotland make information available to persons travelling on those services for the purposes of facilitating travel by people with a disability. It would be outwith the competence of this Parliament to confer a power of a similar nature on Scottish ministers. However, my officials have been raising with the DFT officials on how those accessible information regulations should be designed so far as they relate to Scotland and supported consultation and engagement activities with Scottish stakeholders. That is in addition to the formal consultation response that issues from Scottish ministers to the DFT on the subject. Amendment 246 from Neil Bibby imposes a requirement on LTAs to notify the traffic commissioner about a proposed change of a bus route or substantial timetable change. It would also require such changes to be considered by a panel appointed by the traffic commissioner. Operators are already obliged to apply to the traffic commissioner to make changes to a registered service. The number of registered applications of all kinds over six weeks from April to May was 254. The number of routes and timetable changes that would require to be notified and considered under this amendment could therefore give rise to a significant administrative burden on LTAs and the traffic commissioner and operators. However, more fundamental issue, I am happy to give way to remember. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking that intervention. He quoted a number of statistics there. Is it likely that the disruption that is caused by a lot of these alterations, there is less likely to be these changes if there were this regime in place? That does not necessarily fall. The issue is likely to be that those who are required to consider it have to undertake a significant amount of work to consider any application for a change in registration, which is a fundamental point about this particular amendment. For example, the traffic commissioner would have to give consideration to this. The resource implications, such as a significant increase near work load, would require to give consideration to those matters. An issue that has not been given consideration, given that the commissioner is funded by the UK Government in supporting and discharging their function. I believe that such provisions are also unnecessary, as operators are already required to give 28-days notice to an effective authority of proposals to change or vary a registered service. That allows authorities to assess the changes and impact on local bus planning, provide an opportunity for discussion with operators and other stakeholders, and for authorities to take steps to address any effect on service provision in their area. For example, using existing powers to secure the provision of services required to address unmet transport needs in their area. The bill will expand options available in such circumstances, for example, by making provision for local authorities to run services. It should also be noted that there are a number of technical issues with the amendment that would mean that its effect, its legal effect, is unclear. For example, subsection 4 provides that the panel may decide not to approve the proposed change of route or timetabling, but no provision is made as to the effect of such a decision. In addition, the amendment would place the new requirements affecting the operation of the system of local service registration in a new section 35A of the 2001 act. The legislative provisions underpinning the registration system are found in section 6 to 9 of the Transport Act 1985. It is for those reasons that I believe that the amendments are therefore not necessary or appropriate. Amendment 245 from Colin Smyth would impose a duty on operators to consult with local transport authorities, bus passengers and other relevant parties about changes of bus route or timetabling. Changes of the type referred to in this amendment would require an operator to apply to vary the registered service. Operators are already required to notify LTAs of a proposal to vary a registered service in terms of the Public Service Vehicles Regulations 2001. That ensures early communication between operator and the local transport authority, allowing all available options to be explored. As such, I believe that the amendment is therefore not necessary or appropriate. Amendment 173 makes a technical adjustment to section 135 of the Transport Act 1985, resolving a potential overlap in the consultation requirements, applying when the Scottish ministers proposed to make regulations under the new section 6.7a, 6.za and 6.zc of that act. The remaining amendments are minor in nature in providing further clarification in the bill. I would ask Neil Bibby not to press amendment 244 and 246, Jamie Greene not to press amendment 245 and Colin Smyth not to press amendment 107 and 247, but, if they are pressed, I would ask the committee to reject them. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Jamie Greene, can I ask you to speak to amendment 245, please, and other amendments in the group? I agree. Hold heartedly with the cabinet secretary's comments and I will not move my amendment. Thank you. Can I ask Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 107 and any other amendments in the group? I hope that Jamie Greene meant only in his amendment, of course, because I am sure that he will fully support amendment 107 in my name, which is to require public service information to be made available in accessible formats. That relates to information provided to the public, rather than the information shared under the specific provisions in this section, but the legislation team advised that that will have the effect of delivering these changes. The sale people who are in some way prevented from driving often rely on public transport to get around, but they can face significant barriers in accessing them. At one key example of that is the ability to access basic information such as timetables. Without that information, some people will realistically be prevented from public transport, which in turn limits their ability to access any other services or opportunities that they need public transport to get to. The amendment calls for information to be made available to the public in accessible formats such as large font, audible and braille. It does not require every operator to automatically have every piece of information that the public has translated into every possible format, just that it should be available as needed and requested. That would simply ensure that deaf people and visually impaired people can access the same basic information that most people will take for granted. I am aware that the cabinet secretary touched on the changes that were enabled in the bus services that 2017 introduced around information for bus passengers. However, I understand that those provisions primarily relate to the information available during the journey, not prior to what the amendment looks like. The cabinet secretary also indicated that officials were liaison with the UK Government on accessible information, but there was no information there as to what they were actually asking for. It is not clear to me what the Scottish Government's position is on that. It is a basic right that if somebody who has a disability needs information on a bus time, such as in braille or in an audible format, then there should be an obligation to provide that. Amendment 107, in my name, will achieve that. Noting that, in Peterhead academy, there are 28 languages in the school, would that require them to provide information in an accessible form? In other words, in another language, because not all the 28 languages people can speak English. That particular amendment refers directly to people with a particular disability who require, for example, braille or audible format. However, if Mr Stevenson wants to bring forward another amendment that stays free to achieve support for his residents in Peterhead, then it is worth considering. Amendment 247 requires bus operators to consult on any changes to bus routes. As it stands, operators only have to consult on changes to subsidise routes when changing commercial services. They only have to notify the traffic commissioner. That does not mean that the public do not get advance notice or an opportunity to respond to changes to vital services purely because they are commercial routes. It is simply not the same to say that because a bus operator informs the authorities—which I think was a phrase the cabinet secretary used—that the public will automatically know that that change is taking place. Too often, the public find out that there has been a change to a bus service when they pick up a timetable and discover that their commercial bus service has been axed in a particular area and that they have no say whatsoever on what that route change should be. That amendment will change that. There are too many instances where the first passers know not only when the bus simply does not arrive. Some bus companies carry out consultation, but that is in an ad hoc way, and it varies in terms of quality. It is an issue that every single member in this Parliament will receive complaints about, and we have an opportunity to tackle that issue as the transport bill goes through. It is simply saying that authorities will be told in advance about a change that is not the same as passengers. Amendment 246 by Neil Bibby likewise looks to strengthen bus operators' responsibilities in this regard and sets out a specific process for how to do that. I am happy to support either approach, depending on what the committee prefers, but the principle of proper consultation is something that we need to start to put in place if we are going to fully support and encourage people to use our bus services. Thank you. I should have checked that first. Neil, could I ask you to wind up and press a withdrawal of your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. As I indicated, the purpose of amendment 244 is to clarify the requirement that we are placing on operators and consider whether that could be strengthened, having reflected on the comments by the cabinet secretary. I will not press amendment 244. Amendment 246, however, represents more than just a duty to notify the traffic commissioner about changes to our bus route or major change to timetabling. It requires consultation with operators and bus users, and it allows a panel to reject a change to our registered service. I believe that it helps to rebalance the power in the bus market. For those reasons, I will press amendment 246, and I hope that members will also consider supporting Colin Smyth's amendments. As Neil Peabody wishes to withdraw amendment 244, I have to ask if any member wishes to object. No one wishes to object, therefore the amendment is withdrawn. I'm now going to call amendments 103, 104, 105 and 106, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, nor previously debated. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendments 103 to 106 on block, please? Moved. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 103 to 106? Therefore, the question is, are we agreed to amendments 103 to 106? Jumping the gun there, we're agreed. Therefore, the question is, that section 33 be agreed, are we all agreed? I call amendment 245 in the name of Jeremy Greene, already debated with amendment 244. Jeremy Greene, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 107 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 244. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, there's division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are five votes, four, six votes against, so amendment 107 is not agreed. Can I call amendment 108 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 244, cabinet secretary, to move formally? Moved. The question is, that amendment 108 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed, I therefore call amendment 246 in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 244. Neil Bibby, to move or not move? Move. The question, therefore, will be, that amendment 246 be agreed, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, there's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. And those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes, four, there are nine votes against, therefore amendment 246 is not agreed. I call amendment 247 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 244. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Move. The question is, that amendment 247 be agreed, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, there's a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, please raise their hands. There are two votes, four, there are nine votes against, therefore amendment 247 is not agreed. The question is, that section 34 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 109 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 233. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Yes, not move can be now. Okay, do I have to call 109A? Okay, the question is, sorry? No, I don't need to do that, we move on to the next one. Right, we have the opportunity committee just to move on, there is one amendment in this section, which if that was debated and we went to the vote very quickly, would take us to a natural break in bus services, ending that bit and moving on to smart ticketing. There is only a small session today, I would propose pushing on, because I think— Line that you're drawing and I think we should have the ability to concentrate on these properly. After five hours, it's not a good system for making law. You know, if you want to pull a plug, I'm very happy to put it there. Now I'm going to suspend the meeting and we'll take it through. We'll meet back here at six o'clock this evening to continue this section of amendments. I would thank the committee for their attention this morning and for the good progress that we've made.